T* 


f 

^.^ 


• ;. 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 

AND  HIS 

ANSWERS     COMPLETE. 


PART  1. 

MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL, 

AS  SHOWN   BY 

JUDGE  JERE  S.  BLACK,  PROF.  SWING,  J.  MONRO  GIBSON,  D.D.,  W.  H. 
RYDER,  D.  D.,   RABBI   WISE,   BROOKE   HERFORD,   D.  D., 

AND  OTHERS. 
INCLUDING  INGEKSOLL'S  LECTURE,  THE 

"MISTAKES     OF     MOSES." 


PART  3. 

MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL, 

AS  SHOWN    BY 

BISHOP  CHENEY,  CHAPLAIN  MCCABE,  REV.W.  F.  CRAFTS,  ROBERT  COLLYER, 
D.D.,  ARTHUR  SWAZEY,  D.D.,  FRED.  PERRY  POWERS,  AND  OTHERS. 

INCLUDING   ALSO 

INGERSOLL'S     LECTURE     ON     "SKULLS," 

And  His  Funeral  Oration  at  His  Brothers  Grave, 

WITH  COMMENTS  ON  THE  SAME  BY 

HENRY  WARD  BEECHER  AND  HON.  ISAAC  N.  ARNOLD. 


PART   3. 

INGERSOLL'S  NEW  DEPARTURE. 

REPLIES  TO   HIS   FAMOUS  LECTURE, 

"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?" 

BY 

PROF.  DAVID  SWING,  BISHOP  FALLOWS,  DR.  H.  W.  THOMAS,  PROF.  CURTIS, 
DR.  LORIMER,  DR.  COURTNEY  AND  OTHERS. 

WITH   THK  LECTURE   APPENDED. 

>  AND 

INGERSOLL'S   ANSWERS 

TO 

PROF.  SWING,  DR.  THOMAS,  AND  OTHERS. 


EL>n  EI)    BY 

J.  B.  MeCLURE. 


CHICAGO: 
RHODES    &    McCL  URE,    PUBLISHERS. 

1884. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1882, 

By  J.  B.  McCtiURE  &  R.  H.  RHODES, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


A  religious  faith  at  present  so  generally  pervades  the 
civilized  world  that  it  seems  almost  amazing  that  any  one 
should  dare  speak  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  does  in  his  several  lec- 
tures about  the  Bible.  It  is  'this  singularity,  no  doubt, 
rather  than  intrinsic  worth,  which  gives  any  significance 
that  may  attach  to  his  words.  That  the  Bible  is  in  the 
least  endangered  is  out  of  the  question.  It  is  too  late  now 
for  that.  The  words  herein  cojn  piled  from  good  and  able 
men,  who  have  made  the  great  Book,  in  its  early  language, 
import  and  history,  a  careful  study  for  long  years,  will  show 
how  futile  are  Mr.  Ingersoll's  efforts  in  parading  what  he 
calls  the  "  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  etc.  Indeed,  it  would  seem 
that,  possibly  Mr.  I.  is  guilty  of  a  mistaken  identity,  for  he 
is  severely  accused  of  false  assertions  and  misrepresentations 
concerning  the  real  Moses.  This  reminds  us  of  a  "  mis- 
take" which  was  made  on  a  certain  occasion  by  the  celebra- 
ted Archbishop  of  Dublin,  the  gifted  author  of  the  work  so 
widely  known,  entitled  "The  Study  of  Words."  He  was 
not  in  robust  health  at  the  time,  and  for  many  years  had 
been  apprehensive  of  paralysis.  At  a  dinner  in  Dublin, 
given  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  his  grace  sat.  on 
the  right  of  his  hostess,  the  Duchess  of  Abercorn.  In  the 
midst  of  the  dinner  the  compAny  was  startled  by  seeing  the 


2054895 


4  rBKFACE. 

Archbishop  rise  from  his  seat,  and  still  more  startled  to  hear 
him  exclaim  in  a  dismal  and  sepulchral  tone,  "  It  has  comet 
it  has  come!" 

"  What  has  come,  your  Grace? "  eagerly  cried  half  a  dozen 
voices  from  different  parts  of  the  table. 

"  What  I  have  been  expecting  for  twenty  years,"  solemnly 
answered  the  archbishop — "  a  stroke  of  paralysis.  I  have 
been  pinching  myself  for  the  last  twenty  miuutes,  and  find 
myself  entirely  without  sensation." 

"  Pardon  me,  my  dear  archbishop,"  said  the  duchess, 
looking  up  at  him  with  a  somewhat  quizzical  smile — "  par- 
don me  for  contradicting  you,  but  it  is  /  that  you  have  been 
pinching!" 

Messrs.  Gibson,  Swing,  Ryder  and  Ilerford,  of  Chicago, 
and  Habbi  Wise,  of  Cincinnati,  whose  replies  are  herein 
given,  are  too  well  known  as  scholars  and  divines,  to  require 
any  introduction  to  a  reading  public.  Their  words  are 
wise  and  timely,  and  are  put  on  record  in  this  form  to  show 
the  weakness  of  modern  infidelity  and  the  stability  of  Divine 
Truth. 

J.  B. 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY 

The  Lawyer  vs.  The  Philosopher — Ingersoll's  Pro- 
fessional Proclivities  in  Making  a  Part  Equal  to 
the  Whole .8 

Seven  Mistakes  of  Moses  Left  Out! — Injustice  to 
Hebrew  History 10 

Swing  Puts  Himself  in  Ingersoll's  Place  and  At- 
tacks the  Seventeenth  Century — IIow  it  Works  13 

Ingersoll's  Narrowness  Shuts  Out  God,  Heaven  and 
Immortality — Infidel  Dogmatism  .  .  .15 

In  the  World's  Great  Freedom  of  Choice,  Ingersoll 
is  Counted  Out 18 

DK.  RYDER'S  REPLY 21 

Ingersoll's  Unfairness — Attributes  to  Moses  State- 
ments not  in  the  Bible  .  .  .  .  .22 
His  Temporary  Insanity  occasioned  by  Heavy  Rains 
— Intellectually  Submerged  in  the  Deluge — Dam- 
aging Blunders — Ingersoll  up  the  Wrong  Moun- 
tain   24 

Top-heavy — Too  Broad  a  Structure  reared  on  a  Too 

Narrow  Base 27 

Ingersoll's  Inconsistency  .  ,  .  .  .  29 
He  Has  No  Poetry  in  His  Soul ;  ergo,  etc.  .  .  31 
Additional  Misrepresentations  ....  32 
Dr.  Ryder  Propounds  a  Question  .  .  .  .34 

-.5) 


f  CONTENTS. 

PAGB 

Ingersoll  Admits  His  Sad  Need  of  Inspiration    .        35 
Ingersoll's  "  Religion  of  Humanity  "  All  Right  Ex- 
cept the  Religion          .  -     -  -.   •     .        .        .        .37 
Dr.  Ryder  Tells  a  Little  Story  for  the  sake  of  Illus- 
tration      .        . 39 

DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY  .  ,  '  .  .  .  .41 
The  Ingersoll  Paradox  ..  .  •'  .  '..  42 
Ingersoll's  Exaggerations  and  False  Assertions  .  43 
Dr.  Herford's  Story  of  Moses,  with  an  Apt  Illustra- 
tion— The  Germinal  Power  of  the  Pentateuch  .  46 
The  Mosaic  Religion  of  Humanity  .  .  .49 

THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY 53 

DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY    .        .        .  ,       .        .        •        .61 

Ingersoll  Betrays  His  Ignorance  ....  62 

Harmony  of  Science  and  Genesis     .        .        .        .63 

The  Harmony  of    Genesis   and    Science   Not  the 

Result  of  Guess-work,  but  of  Inspiration        .  67 

S~i 69 

Nature         .     '   .        .        .        .        .        .        .  70 

Man         .  « 72 

"Woman 73 

Mistakes  Respecting  Labor  and  Death  Corrected     .  75 
The  Deluge  and  its  Difficulties — Not  Universal — 
Ararat  originally  a  District  (alas!  Ingersoll  calls 
it  a  High  Mountain) — Other  Deluges       .        .  76 
Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Essential  Factor       .         .  80 
Candor  vs.   Injustice — Dr.  Gibson's  Pointed  Sum- 
mary           81 

WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE       .      85-96 

IJTGERSOLL'S  LECTURE, 

Entitled  "THE  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES,"        .         .          07 

JUDGE  JERE  8.  BLACK'S  REPLY         ....  119-128 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 


AS  SHOWN   BY 


PROF.  SWING, 

W.  H.  RYDER,  D.  D., 

BROOKE  HERFORD,  D.  D., 


J.  MONRO  GIBSON,  D.  D., 
RABBI  WISE, 
AND  OTHERS. 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY. 


THIS  discourse  is  not  spoken  regarding  the  man,  Robert 
G.  Ingersoll,  but  regarding  the  addresses  which  he  is  deliv- 
ering and  is  otherwise  publishing.  The  man  Ingersoll  is 
said  to  be,  in  his  private  life,  kind,  neighborly, -humane, 
and  in  many  ways  an  example  which  might  be  imitated 
with  great  profit  by  thousands  who  represent  themselves  as 
holding  the  Pagan  or  the  Christian  religion.  But,  were 
this  author  and  lecturer  a  mean,  wicked  man,  I  should  still 
be  bound  to  consider  his  thoughts  apart  from  the  thinker 
just  as  we  deal  with  Bacon's  ideas  apart  from  his  moral 
qualities,  and  the  politics  of  Alexander  Hamilton  apart 
from  the  infirmities  of  his  moral  sentiments.  The  intel> 


8  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

lect  of  such  an  individual  as  the  one  before  us  is  a  thinking 
machine.  It  makes  a  survey  of  the  religious  landscape. 
Objects  strike  it  that  escape  you  and  me.  His  eyes  are  not 
those  of  a  preacher,  not  those  of  a  bishop,  nor  those  of  an 
evangelist  like  Mr.  Moody;  not  those  of  a  moralist  like 
Dymond  or  William  Penn,  nor  those  of  Theodore  Parker 
or  Emerson,  but  they  are  a  vision  purely  his  own,  and  our 
task  is  limited  to  the  inquiry  what  this  peculiar  sense  dis- 
covers in  our  wide  and  varied  world. 

The   Lawyer  vs.  The  Philosopher — Ingersoll's  Professional 
Proclivities  in  Making  a  Part  equal   to  the  'Whole  ! 

"We  perceive  at  once  that  these  addresses  do  not  offer  us 
any  system  of  philosophy  for  woman,  or  child,  or  State,  and 
therefore  they  cannot  aspire  to  be  any  valuable  Mentor  to 
tell  each  young  Telemachus  how  to  live.  They  are  the 
speeches  of  a  lawyer  retained  by  one  client  of  a  large  case. 
Men  trained  in  a  profession  come  by  degrees  into  the  pro- 
fession's channel,  and  flow  only  in  the  one  direction,  and  al- 
ways between  the  same  banks.  The  master  of  a  learned 
profession  at  last  becomes  its  slave.  He  who  follows  faith- 
fully any  calling  wears  at  last  a  soul  of  that  calling's  shape. 
You  remember  the  death  scene  of  the  poor  old  schoolmas- 
ter. He  had  assembled  the  boys  and  girls  in  the  winter 
mornings  anfl  had  dismissed  them  winter  evenings  after 
sundown,  and  had  done  this  for  fifty  long  years.  One  win- 
ter Monday  he  did  not  appear.  Death  had  struck  his  old 
and  feeble  pulse;  but,  dying,  his  mind  followed  its  beauti- 
ful but  narrow  river-bed,  and  his  last  words  were:  "It  is 
growing  dark — the  school  is  dismissed  -let  the  girls  pass 
out  first."  Very  rarely  does  the  man  in  the  pulpit,  or  at 
the  bar,  or  in  statesmanship,  escape  this  molding  hand  of 
his  pursuit  We  are  all  clay  in  the  hands  of  that  potter 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  fl 

whioh  is  called  a  pursuit.  A  pursuit  is  seldom  an  ocean  of 
water;  it  is  more  commonly  a  canal.  But  if  there  be  a 
class  of  men  more  modified  than  others  in  language  and 
forms  of  speech,  the  lawyers  compose  such  a  class,  for  it  is 
never  their  business  to  present  both  sides.  It  is  their  espe- 
cial duty  so  to  arrange  a  part  of  the  facts  as  that  they  shall 
seem  to  be  the  whole  facts,  and  next  to  their  power  of  pre- 
senting a  cause  must  come  their  power  to  conceal  all  aspects 
unfavorable  to  their  purpose.  A  philosopher  must  see  and 
set  forth  at  once  both  sides  of  all  questions,  but  a  lawyer 
must  learn  to  see  the  one  side  of  a  case,  for  there  is  another 
man  expressly  employed  to  see  the  reverse  of  the  shield. 
But  few  of  us  are  philosophers.  When  we  wish  to  exhibit 
something,  we  instantly  cut  off  all  light  except  that  which 
will  fall  upon  our  goods.  If  we  are  to  display  only  a  yard 
of  silk,  we  will  veil  the  sun  and  move  about  to  find  the 
right  position,  and  then  light  a  little  more  gas,  that  the 
fields,  and  hills,  and  heavens  may  all  withdraw,  and  permit 
us  to  see  the  fold  of  a  bride's  dress.  Thus  all  the  profes- 
sions, honored  by  being  called  learned,  do  more  or  less  cut 
off  the  light  from  all  things  except  the  fabric  that  is  being 
unfolded  by  their  skillful  fingers. 

Men  of  intense  emotional  power  like  Mr.  Ingersoll,  and 
men  who,  like  him,  have  hearts  as  full  of  colors  as  a  paint- 
er's shop,  are  wont,  beyond  common,  to  pour  their  passion 
upon  one  object  rather  than  diffuse  it  all  over  the  world. 
These  can  awaken,  and  entertain,  and  shake,  and  unsettle, 
but  then,  after  all  is  over,  we  all  must  seek  for  final  guides 
men  who  are  calmer  and  who  spread  gentler  tints  with  their 
brush.  I  am,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  none  of  us 
should  follow  any  one  man,  but  rather  all  men ;  should  seek 
that  general  impression,  that  wide-reaching  common-sense, 
which  knows  little  of  ecstacy  and  little  of  despair.  These 


10  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

"Addresses  "  under  notice  are  wonderful  concentrations  of 
Wit,  and  fun,  and  tears,  and  logic,  but  concentrations  upon 
minor  points.  They  are  severe  upon  a  little  group  of  men, 
Upon  literalists  and  old  Popes,  and  old  monks,  but  they  do 
not  weigh  and  measure  fully  the  religion  of  such  a  being  as 
Jesus  Christ,  nor  touch  the  ideas  and  actions  of  the  human 
race  away  from  these  fading  forms  of  human  nature. 

Seven  Mistakes  of  Moses  Left  out! —  Injustice  to  Hebrew 

History. 

These  addresses  do  injustice  to  the  Hebrew  history.  A 
lawyer  has  a  right  to  be  one-sided  and  narrow  when  he  is 
presenting  the  cause  of  his  client,  but  when  he  is  addressing 
a  public  upon  a  religious,  or  political,  or  social  question, 
narrowness  in  his  discourse  must  be  considered  an  infirmity, 
or  else  an  act  of  injustice.  These  speeches  betray  either 
nnconscions  narrowness  or  willful  injustice.  But  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  is  the  embodiment  of  sincerity,  according  to  those  who 
enjoy  his  acquaintance,  and  therefore  we  must  conclude 
that  the  cast  of  his  mind  is  such  that  it  is  led  hither  and 
thither  by  that  narrowness  which  belongs  no  more  to  a  high 
Calvinist  than  to  a  high  infidel.  If  the  lecture  upon 
"Moses"  had  been  more  thoughtful,  it  would  have  con- 
fessed that  there  were  several  forms  of  the  man  "  Moses," — 
the  historic  "  Moses,"  the  Hebrew  "  Moses,"  and  the  Calvin- 
iatic  "  Moses ; "  and  then,  after  this  concession,  he  might  have 
assailed  the  "  Calvinistic  Moses."  .... 
But  if  the  addresses  had  been  broad,  and  spoken  for  that 
larger  audience  called  humanity,  they  would  have  asked  us 
to  mark  the  mistakes  of  the  Moses  of  Hebrew  times  and  of 
common  history.  But  they  did  not  dream  of  this.  Stand- 
ing in  the  presence  of  one  of  the  grandest  figures  of  Egyp- 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  11 

tian  and  Hebrew  antiquity,  Mr.  Ingersoll  failed  to  see  this 
personage,  and  permitted  nothing  to  come  upon  his  field  of 
vision  except  those  sixteenth  century  theologians  who  dis- 
torted alike  the  mission  of  Moses  and  of  Christ,  and  even 
of  the  Almighty.  To  set  forth  the  mistakes  of  the  historic 
"  Moses "  would  not  be  any  easy  task.  One  doing  this 
would  be  compelled  to  ask  us  to  mark  the  blunders  of  a 
leader  who  planned  freedom  for  slaves;  who  bore  complain- 
ings from  an  ignorant  people  until  he  won  the  fame  of  unu- 
sual meekness,  one  who  did  in  reality  what  infidels  only 
have  dreamed  of  doing — living  and  dying  for  the  people; 
the  mistakes  of  one  whose  ten  laws  are  still  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  a  State,  of  one  who  organized  a  nation  which  lived 
and  flourished  for  1,500  years;  thp  mistakes  of  one  who 
divested  the  idea  of  God  of  bestiality  and  began  to  clothe  it 
with  the  notions  of  wisdom  and  justice,  and  even  tenderness; 
the  follies  of  one  who  established  industry  and  education, 
and  a  higher  form  of  religion,  and  gave  the  nation  holding 
'these  virtues  such  an  impulse  that  in  the  hour  of  dissolving 
it  produced  a  Jesus  Christ  and  the  twelve  Apostles;  and 
thus  did  more  in  its  death  than  Atheism  could  achieve  in  all 
the  eons  of  geology.  Seven  mistakes  of  Moses  left  out! 

There  is,  it  is  true,  a  time  and  a  place  for  irony,  but  after 
it  has  done  its  work  amid  the  accidental  of  a  time  or  a  place, 
there  remains  yet  much  to  be  studied  by  the  sober  intellect 
and  loved  by  the  heart  which  really  cares  for  the  useful  and 
the  true.  It  is  essentially  a  small  matter  that  some  poetic 
mind,  some  Froissart  or  some  Herodotus,  came  along  per- 
haps after  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  gathered  up 
sail  the  truths  of  old  Hebrew  tradition,  and  all  the  legends, 
too,  and  wove  them  together,  for  out  of  such  entanglements 
the  essential  ideas  generally  rise  up  just  as  noble  pine  trees 
at  last  rise  up  above  the  brambles  and  thickets  at  their  base, 


J2  MISTAKES  OF  IXGERSOL^. 

and  evermore  stand  in  the  full  presence  of  rain,  and  air,  and 
sun.  Above  the  brambles  and  thorn  of  legend,  at  which 
the  narrow  eye  may  laugh,  there  rises  up  from  the  Mosaic 
soil  a  growth  of  moral  truth  that  catches  at  last  full  sun- 
shine and  full  breeze;  a  growth  that  will  long  make  a  good 
shadow  for  the  graves  of  Christian  and  infidel  beneath. 
The  errors  of  logend  are  so  unimportant  that  even  a  Divine 
Book  may  carry  them. 

It  will  thus  appear  that  the  method  of  the  addresses  is 
very  defective.  It  is  not  a  wide  survey  of  a  two-thousand- 
year  period  in  human  civilization,  a  period  when  the  He- 
brews were  making  imperishable  the  good  of  the  Egyptians 
who  were  dying  from  vices  and  despotism,  but  is  only  the 
ramble  of  a  satirist  having  a  sharp  eye  for  defects  and  a  most 
ready  tongue.  All  the  by -gone  periods  may  be  passed  over 
in  two  manners.  We  may  go  forth  for  our  laughter  or  for 
our  pensiveness  and  wisdom.  Juvenal  saw  old  Rome  full 
of  dissolute  men  and  women.  Virgil  saw  it  full  of  litera- 
ture. Tacitus  found  it  not  destitute  of  patriots  and  heroes; 
and  when  Juvenal  found  the  husbands  all  debauchees,  and 
the  wives  all  hypocrites,  there  the  most  calm  and  elegant 
historians  found  the  most  excellent  Agricola,  and  found  a 
wife  of  spotless  fame  in  the  daughter  Domitia.  Thus  in 
the  very  generations  in  which  the  lampoons  of  Juvenal 
found  only  vice,  behold  we  see  beauty  and  virtue  in  full 
bloom  around  the  homes  of  Tacitus,  and  Agricola,  and 
Pliny.  Thus  alii  the  fields  of  human  thought  lie  open  to 
the  invasion  of  those  who  wish  to  mock,  and  of  those  who 
wish  to  admire.  And  beyond  doubt  when  Mr.  Ingersoll 
shall  have  uttered  his  last  thought  over  the  Mistakes  of 
Moses,  some  other  form  of  intellect  could  glean  in  the  same 
field,  and  leave  covered  with  the  truths  of  Moses,  a  nobler 
and  larger  tablet. 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  19 

« 

Swing  Puts  Himself  in  Ingersoll's  Place  and  Attacks  the 
Seventeenth  Century. — How  it  Works! 

Permit  me  now,  in  imitation  of  the  style  of  these  addresses, 
to  ask  you  to  look  at  the  seventeenth  century:  Why,  it  all 
drips  in  blood!  Horror  upon  horrors!  The  King  of  Persia 
put  to  death  some  of  the  Koyal  family  and  put  out  the  eyes 
of  all  the  rest — even  the  eyes  of  infants.  Russia  begins  her 
cruel  oppression  of  Poland.  Prussia,  the  hope  of  Europe, 
is  desolated  by  war,  which  never  lifted  its  black  cloud  for 
thirty  years.  In  this  wretched  century  came  the  massacre 
of  Prague  and  the  forcible  banishment  of  30,000  Protestant 
families.  Allowing  five  persons  to  a  family,  it  will  thus  ap- 
pear that  150,000  were  driven  from  their  homes  and  country. 
Further  south,  in  France,  a  few  years  before,  700,000  Pro- 
testants had  been  murdered  in  twenty-four  hours.  After- 
ward came  the  licentious  court  of  Louis  XIV. ;  while  over 
in  England  noble  men  and  women  were  being  beheaded  or 
otherwise  slain  in  dreadful  numbers.  The  beautiful  Queen 
Mary  is  beheaded  just  as  the  century  begins,  and  Essex  is 
beheaded  in  its  full  opening.  And  in  its  close  France  re- 
enters  the  scene,  revokes  the  edict  of  Nantes,  and  sen  ds  into 
exile  800,000  of  her  best  citizens. 

Thus  dragged  along  the  seventeenth  century,  as  it  would 
seem,  bleeding,  and  weeping,  and  gasping  in  perpetual 
dying.  .What  a  picture!  Amazing  indeed,  but  narrow  and 
false!  I  have  been  thinking  only  of  the  "mistakes  "  of  a 
time.  Just  look  at  that  century  again  with  a  wider  survey 
and  a  happier  heart,  and  lo!  we  see  in  it  a  matchless  line 
of  immortal  worthies.  There  flourished  Gustavus,  laying 
the  foundations  of  our  liberty;  there  lived  Grotius,  writing 
down  the  holiest  principles  of  duty;  there  we  see  Galileo 
IB  venting  the  telescope,  and  beholding  the  starry  sky;  there 


14  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Bits  Kepler  finding  the  highest  laws  of  astronomy;  near 
these  are  the  French  preachers,  Bossuet,  Fenelon,  and  Mas- 
silon,  whose  fame  has  not  been  equaled;  there,  too,  Pascal 
and  Corneille.  But  this  is  not  all.  It  is  not  one-third  the 
splendor  of  that  one  epoch,  for,  cross  the  Channel,  and 
behold  yon  meet  Shakspeare,  and  Lord  Bacon,  and  Milton, 
and  Locke,  and  while  these  divine  minds  are  composing 
their  books,  Cromwell  is  overthrowing  despots,  and  a 
Republic  springs  up  as  by  enchantment.  Thus  the  seven- 
teenth century,  which  awhile  ago  seemed  only  a  period  that 
a  kind  heart  might  wish  stricken  from  history,  now  comes 
back  to  us  as  the  sublime  dawn  of  poetry,  and  science,  and 
eloquence,  and  liberty. 

The  truth  is  we  must  move  through  the  present  and  the 
past  with  both  eyes  wide  open,  and  with  a  mind  willing  to 
know  all  and  to  draw  a  conclusion  from  the  whole  combined 
cloud  of  witnesses.  The  author  of  the  addresses  does  not 
do  this.  lie  does  not  make  a  wide  survey  nor  draw  conclu- 
sions from  widely  scattered  facts;  and  hence,  after  he  has 
spoken  about  the  horrors  of  the  Mosaic  age,  or  of  the  church 
there  remains  that  age  or  that  church  emptying  rich  treas- 
ures into  the  general  civilization,  purifying  the  barbarous 
ages,  awaking  the  intellect,  stimulating  the  arts,  inspiring 
good  works,  elevating  the  life  of  the  living,  by  setting  "before 
man  a  God  and  a  future  existence.  Our  Christianity  has  a 
Hebrew  origin.  The  sermon  on  the  Mount  was  begun  by 
Moses. 

The  eloquence  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  much  like  the  art  of 
Hogarth  or  John  Leech, — au  acute,  and  witty,  and  interest- 
ing art,  but  very  limited  in  its  range.  Hogarth  was  with- 
out a  rival  in  his  ability  to  picture  the  "  mistakes"  of  mar- 
riage, and  of  a  "  Rake's  Progress,"  the  peculiarity  of  "  Beer 
Lane"  and  "Gin  Lane";  and  his  art  was  legitimate  in  its 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  15 

field,  but  its  field  was  narrow,  and  took  no  notice  of  the 
eternal  beauty  of  things  as  painted  by  Rubens  or  Raphael. 
After  Hogarth  had  said  all  he  could  see  and  believe  about 

CJ 

marriage,  there  stood  the  holy  relation  in  its  historic  great- 
ness, filling  millions  of  homes  with  its  peace  and  friend- 
ship, notwithstanding  the  mirth-provoking  pencil.  Thus 
the  ideas  of  "  Moses,"  and  "  Church,"  and  "  Heaven,"  and 
"  God"  lie  before  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  be  pictured  by  his  skill- 
ful derision,  but  after  the  artist  has  drawn  his  little  Puritanic 
Hebrew  and  his  absurd  Heaven,  and  has  painted  his  little 
gods,  and  has  limned  his  own  Papal  Heaven  and  Hell, 
another  scene  opens  and  there  untarnished  are  the  deep 
things  of  right  and  wrong,  the  immortal  hopes  of  man,  and 
a  Heavenly  Father  which  cannot  be  placed  upon  a  jester's 
canvas. 

John  Leech  found  the  weak  points  in  all  English  high 
and  low  life.  The  fashions,  and  sports,  and  entertainments, 
and  the  current  politics,  underwent  for  a  generation  the  tor- 
ture of  his  pictures,  his  sketches,  his  cartoons,  but  the 
moment  the  laugh  had  ended,  the  homes  of  England,  the 
happy  social  life  of  rich  and  poor,  the  learning  and  wisdom 
of  her  statesmen  were  back  in  their  place  just  as  the  sun  is 
in  his  place  after  a  noisy  thunderstorm  has  passed  by. 

Ingersoll's  Narrowness  Shuts  out  God,  Heaven  and  Immor- 
tality— Infidel   Dogmatism. 

This  narrowness  of  survey  which  marks  Mr.  IngersolPs 
estimate  of  the  Hebrew  period  and  of  the  human  Church, 
follows  him  in  his  thoughts  about  another  life  and  the  exist- 
ence of  God.  lie  denies  that  any  regard  whatever  should 
be  paid  to  a  second  life.  Heaven  deserves  no  consider- 
ation at  our  hands.  He  says  in  his  lecture  on  the  Gods: 
"  Reason,  observation  and  experience  have  taught  us 
2 


16  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  happiness  is  the  only  good;  that  the  time  to  be  happy 
is  now,  and  the  way  to  be  happy  is  to  make  others  so.  This 
is  enough  for  us.  In  this  belief  we  are  content  to  live  and 
die."  Such  assertions  as  these  no  broadly-reaching  mind 
could  make,  for  the  broad  mind,  not  knowing  but  that  there 
may  be  a  second  life,  having  no  positive  information  on  that 
point,  is  bound  to  admit  all  that  uncertainty,  and  that  hope 
is  a  most  lawful  element  in  that  strange  mingling  which 
makes  up  the  soul.  As  Mr.  Ingersoll  does  not  know  whence 
man  came,  so  he  knows  not  whither  he  goes,  and  therefore 
he  must  himself  stand  and  permit  others  to  stand  in  the 
presence  of  death  as  in  the  presence  of  a  great  mystery  that, 
at  least,  should  silence  all  dogmatism  of  priest  or  infideL 
The  logic  of  the  addresses  may  be  fitted  for  the  common 
jury,  but  they  are  too  rude  for  man  who  is  weeping  his 
way  along  between  birth  and  death. 

In  some  better  hour  the  lawyer  forgets  his  petit  jury  and 
addresses  the  human  soul.  On  the  title  page  of  a  recent 
volume  he  says  in  substance  that:  "  The  dream  of  irnrnor- 
tal  life  has  always  existed  in  the  heart  of  man,  and  will 
remain  there  in  all  its  matchless  charms,  born  not  of  any 
book  or  creed,  but  out  of  human  affection;"  and  being  not 
born  of  reason  and  sense,  he  can  but  reject  its  hope;  he  is 
personally  above  being  molded  in  thought,  or  action,  by 
such  a  fable  of  the  heart.  In  calling  such  a  dream  a  fable, 
he  is  guilty  of  that  very  dogmatism  which  he  so  hates  in 
Calvin  and  Edwards,  for  if  Calvin  was  too  certain  that  he 
knew  God's  will,  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  too  certain  that  he  knows 
God  not  to  exist.  It  often  happens  that  the  dogmatism 
of  the  bigot  must  await  its  exact  parallel  in  the  dogmatism 
of  the  atheist.  The  ideas  of  a  future  life  and  a  God  are 
thus  in  these  addresses  rudely  set  aside  as  though  this 
author  had  shown  the  real  origin  and  destiny  of  the  Uni- 
xvrise,  and  had  found  out  the  si.rret  of  the  grave. 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  17 

He  would  pay  no  attention  to  the  idea  of  God.  He  would 
not  be  guilty  of  any  worship  in  this  life.  He  says:  "  If 
by  any  possibility  the  existence  of  a  power  superior  to  and 
independent  of  nature  shall  be  demonstrated,  there  will  be 
time  enough  to  kneel.  Until  then  let  us  stand  erect." 

In  such  language  we  find  only  a  perfect  overthrow  of  the 
method  of  the  human  soul;  for  the  soul  has  never  dared 
wait  for  any  such  certainty  in  any  of  the  paths  before  it.  It 
has  always  been  compelled  to  build  tip  before  itself  the 
largest  possible  motives  and  hopes,  and  then  live  for  them 
and  abide  the  consequences.  It  is  wonderful  that  a  man 
who  will  pluck  a  violet  and  draw  delight  from  its  tender 
color  and  still  more  delicate  perfume,  will  sternly  command 
the  human  race  not  to  hold  in  its  hands  any  flower  of  im- 
mortality, lest  by  chance  its  leaves  may  at  last  wither.  If 
this  idea  of  a  future  life  should  at  last  fail,  which  seems  im- 
possible, the  human  heart  will  be  all  the  purer  and  happier 
from  having  held  all  through  these  years  a  lily  so  sweet  and 
so  white. 

Logic  cannot  make  such  short  work  of  the  religious  sen- 
timents. Mr.  Ingersoll  says:  "If  you  can  ever  find  a  God, 
just  let  me  know,  and  I  shall  kneel.  Until  then  I  shall 
stand  erect."  What  injustice  to  that  delicate  form  of  rea- 
son, which  has  moved  the  world  for  perhaps  10,000  years! 
We  do  not  propose  to  find  God  or  a  future  life.  What  the 
world  has  found  long  since  is  the  deep  hope  in  a  God,  and 
the  measureless  hope  that  the  dying  loved  ones  of  this  world 
will  meet  in  a  land  that  is  better.  Nobody  has  come  to  the 
human  race  to  let  it  know  that  a  God  has  been  found,  but 
many  have  come  to  it  saying:  "My  dear  children,  let  us 
trust  that  all  this  matchless  universe  came  from  a  Oeatcr, 
and  that  from  him  we  also  came."  So  many  and  so  holy 
were  these  voices,  and  so  responsive  was  the  heart,  that  upon 


18  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

this  trust  the  living  and  the  dying  have  knelt  and  have  told 
their  longings  to  the  Invisible.  The  human  race  has  not 
been  haughty.  It  has  been  willing  to  kneel.  Its  heart  ha& 
never  been  stone,  nor  its  knees  brass.  It  has  stood  erect  in 
battle  where  liberty  was  to  be  won ;  it  has  been  as  erect  as  an 
infidel  when  a  bosorn  was  to  be  bared  for  arrows  or  bullets, 
or  when  the  neck  was  to  be  unclothed  for  the  fatal  ax,  but 
in  moments  of  hope  and  longing  it  has  bent  willingly  in 
hope  and  prayer.  The  advice  of  the  Addresses  not  to  kneel 
until  you  have  reached  and  handled  the  Creator,  is  advice 
that  civilization  has  always  spurned,  for  it4ias  woven  all  its 
gorgeous  fabrics  out  of  delicate  probabilities, — gossamer 
threads  spun  by  the  heart.  Fame,  and  learning,  and  art, 
and  happiness  are  all  simple  possibilities  before  each  youth. 
He  does  not  dare  say,  Make  me  sure  of  results,  and  I  will 
gird  myself  for  the  present.  He  casts  himself  upon  the  bet- 
ter of  two  possibilities,  and  is  borne  along  toward  an  un- 
known end.  Thus  has  the  human  race  dealt  with  the  inti- 
mations of  religion.  It  has  cast  itself  upon  the  better  hope, 
and,  being  at  perfect  liberty  to  espouse  Atheism,  has  always 
repudiated  it  as  being  a  paralysis  of  the  soul,  and  a  perfect 
reversal  of  the  common  logic  of  society. 

In  the  World's  Great  Freedom  of  Choice,  Zngersoll  is  Coun- 
ted out ! 

The  world  has  always  been  perfectly  free  to  use  the  form 
of  reasoning  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  suggests.  No  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  no  Calvin  compelled  the  human  family 
from  Old  Egypt  to  Greece  to  think  the  universe  had  a 
Creator.  The  world  has  always  been  free  to  suppose  that 
such  seasons  as  day  and  night  and  spring  arid  summer,  such 
creatures  as  the  nightingale  and  man,  such  a  star  as  the  sun,, 
all  came  from  mud  and  water  and  fire,  mingling  of  their 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  It 

own  accord;  but  the  world  has  had  no  wide  use  for  such 
conclusions.  Of  its  own  free  choice,  it  has  avoided  Atheism, 
and  has  never  made  up  anywhere  a  civilization  without  dis- 
carding the  idea  of  waiting  for  a  demonstration,  and  with- 
out espousing  the  idea  that  all  noble  society  reposes  upon 
lofty  hopes.  Out  of  beautiful  possibilities  the  soul's  gar- 
ments are  woven. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Addresses  are  defective  as  guides 
for  any  man's  life  or  death.  They  constitute  a  bill  of  ex- 
ceptions against  certain  hard  rulings  in  some  local  and  igno- 
rant courts,  but  as  pleadings  in  the  great  tribunal  where  the 
whole  human  family  stands  assembled,  to"  get  the  wisest 
decisions  about  duty  and  happiness,  and  the  possibility  of 
there  being  a  God  and  a  second  life,  the  possible  value  of  a 
hope  for  the  dying — they  each  and  all  fall  far  short.  They 
see  only  the  religion  of  some  fanatic,  and  think  it  the  religion 
of  Jesus  or  of  mankind.  They  see  a  God  damning  honest 
men,  and  conclude  that  is  what  is  meant  by  Jehovah.  They 
see  a  Heaven  with  some  little  sect  in  the  midst  of  it,  and 
speak  as  though  they  were  what  is  meant  by  the  immortality 
of  man.  They  note  the  follies  of  the  Puritans  and  Papists, 
and  infer  that  if  there  were  no  religion  in  the  world,  there 
would  be  no  bad  judgment  or  bad  passions.  They  fail,  too, 
to  mark  the  delicacy  of  man's  practical  logic,  which  is  not 
iron-like,  waiting  for  the  absolute  end  of  all  doubt,  but  which 
is  bending  and  hopeful,  and  stands  ready  forever  to  found 
immense  motives,  and  society,  and  church,  and  homes  upon 
the  greater  and  better  of  two  probabilities  that  lie  within  this 
world  of  cloud.  They  assert  the  adequacy  of  earthly  happi- 
ness as  an  end  of  being,  and  fail  to  mark  that  earthly  hap- 
piness has  always  depended  upon  high  morals,  and  father, 
and  mother,  and  child,  and  social  life,  and  all  mental  de- 
velopment  have  found  their  full  meaning,  until  a  warm  and 


20  MISTAKES  OF  1NGEHSOLL. 

broad  religion  has  shed  its  cheering  light.  The  human  race 
cannot  find  its  supreme  good  in  having  a  few  acres  of  ground, 
and  in  seeing  the  grass  grow,  and  in  hearing  the  birds  sing. 
These  make  some  days  delightful  indeed,  but  man,  with  his 
retinue  of  art,  and  statesmanship,  and  morals,  and  tempta- 
tions, and  virtues,  and  joys,  and  sorrows,  and  partings,  and 
death,  demands  the  assumption  of  a  God,  and  the  expecta- 
tions of  a  resurrection  from  the  dust.  Under  such  a  temple 
as  society,  the  foundation  must  be  deep. 

To  those  who  read  or  hear  these  addresses  of  Mr.  Inger- 
eoll,  let  me  say :  Hear  them,  read  them  if  you  wish,  for  they 
will  show  you  what  a  sad  caricature  of  Christianity  was  that 
which  came  down  to  us  from  the  Dark  Ages;  but,  having 
thus  been  taught  by  an  enemy,  then  dismiss  the  laughter, 
and  look  at  religion  in  the  widest  forms  of  its  doctrine  and 
experience.  We  are  now  warned  daily  not  to  follow  parti- 
sans in  politics,  because  they  will  eclipse  a  country  by  a 
little  chair  in  office — they  will  make  a  village  outweigh  a 
continent.  These  addresses  of  a  talented  lawyer  warn  us 
equally  against  trusting  the  partisans  in  religion — the  dim- 
eyed  zeal  which  makes  a  Deity  as  small  as  their  own  hearts, 
a  Bible  as  cold  and  as  hard  as  adamant;  but  now,  having 
been  taught  to  shun  partisans  in  politics  and  in  Christi- 
anity, let  us  learn  to  resist  one  more  form  of  partisan — the 
partisan  of  an  atheism  and  a  hopeless  grave.  Let  us  at 
times  laugh  with  him,  let  us  admire  his  acuteness,  let  us 
confess  the  honesty  of  his  life,  but  for  our  guides  or  ideas 
in  the  world  spiritual  let  us  seek  some  mountain  of  thought 
where  the  survey  is  broader,  and  tenderer,  and  more  just, 
from  which  height  no  good  lies  concealed;  but  looking  from 
which  we  can  see  the  great  landscape  of  the  soul,  some  of 
it  bathed  in  light,  some  of  it  lying  in  shadow,  but  all  of  it 
instructive  and  full  of  impressiveness. 


DB.  RYDER'S  REPLY. 


DR   RYDER'S  REPLY. 


IN  the  commencement  of  this  review  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
lecture  upon  "  The  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  I  wish  two  things 
distinctly  understood:  •First,  that  my  controversy  is  not 
with  the  man,  but  with  his  address;  and,  second,  that  he 
has  the  same  right  to  advocate  his  views  as  I  have  to  advo- 
cate mine.  On  the  question  of  religious  liberty  we  are  as 
one. 

Furthermore,  I  do  not  wonder  that  certain  minds,  having 
passed  through  peculiar  experiences,  become  thoroughly 
disgusted  with  particular  forms  of  theological  thought.  My 
only  surprise  is  that  more  are  not.  Such  material  ideas  of 
the  Deity  as  are  sometimes  put  forth  in  the  name  of  Chris- 
tianity; such  offensive  literalizing  as  is  sometimes  applied 
to  the  future  life,  and  such  thoroughly  untenable  positions 
as  are  sometimes  taken  as  to  what  the  Scriptures  actually 
we,  has  long  been  a  fruitful  cause  of  infidelity,  and  will 
continue  to  be  so  as  long  as  they  receive  the  indorsement  of 
any  branch  of  the  Christian  Church. 

But  intensity  of  conviction  may  degenerate  into  preju- 
dice, and  this  prejudice  practically  unfits  one  to  discuss  the 
subject  to  which  it  relates.  From  what  the  distinguished 
lecturer  says  of  himself,  of  his  determination  in  every  ad- 
dress he  makes,  no  matter  what  the.  topic,  to  denounce  cer- 
tain views,  and  from  the  specimen  of  his  work  now  brought 


22  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

under  review,  I  conclude  that  Col.  ingersoll  occupies  just 
this  position. 

While,  t^'.en,  the  right  to  speak  one's  honest  thought  it 
thus  frankly  conceded,  and  the  provocation  to  employ  strong 
language  in  reference  to  certain  theological  opinions  is  also 
conceded,  it  will  be  admitted  by  all  candid  minds  that  cer- 
tain subjects  from  their  very  nature,  and  from  interest  which 
they  involve,  are  to  be  treated  with  seriousness  and  fairness. 
If  not  BO  treated,  the  influence  of  the  discussion  is  almost 
certain  to  be  harmful.  The  lecture  under  notice,  though 
nominally  on  the  errors  of  a  particular  character  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  virtually  an  assault  upon  all  revealed  religion, 
and  especially  that  contained  in  the  Bible. 

Ingersoll's  Unfairness — Attributes  to  Moses  Statements 
not  in  the   Bible. 

Now,  my  first  position  is  this:  Whoever  publicly  attacks 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian  world,  and  attempts  to 
destroy  faith  in  them,  should  treat  the  subject  fairly.  I  re- 
gret to  say  that  the  lecture  does  not  seem  to  me  so  to  treat 
its  great  theme,  but  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  conspicuous  illus- 
tration of  prejudice  and  unfairness.  No  small  portion  of 
the  lecture  is  unworthy  a  reply.  There  is  nothing  to  reply 
to.  Of  fair  argument  there  is  a  lamentable  lack, — no  incon- 
siderable portion  of  the  time  seems  to  have  been  spent  in 
knocking  over  a  man  of  straw  of  his  own  manufacture.  If 
his  lecture  be  regarded  simply  as  an  entertainment,  it  is  a 
success,  for  the  Colonel  knows  how  to  amuse  an  audience  as 
well  as  the  best;  but  if  it  were  intended  to  be  a  fair  and 
able  discussion  of  an  important  subject,  it  is  not  simply  a 
failure,  but  a  failure  so  obvious  as  to  leave  no  room  for  any 
other  opinion.  In  proof  of  my  statement  that  the  lecture 
does  not  treat  the  topic  which  it  professes  to  discuss  fairly, 
I  offer  these  specimens  as  evidence: 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  2S 

The  first  specimen  is:  Attributing  to  Moses  language 
and  statements  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  his  writings. 
Speaking  of  Moses,  he  says:  "The  gentleman  who  wrote  it 
(Genesis)  begins  by  telling  us  that  God  made  it  (the  world) 
out  of  nothing."  And  then  he  proceeds  to  ridicule  the  idea. 
But  Moses  says  neither  that  nor  anything  like  it.  The 
lecturer  thus  misrepresents  the  very  first  sentence  in  the 
Pentateuch.  What  Moses  says  is,  that  "In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  What  he  created 
them  out  of,  or  when  "in  the  beginning"  was,  he  does  not 
say.  The  simple  thought  is  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
were  not-  self-evolved,  but  were  created  by  the  Omnipotent 
Jehovah. 

"  You  recollect,"  he  says,  "  that  the  gods  came  down  and 
made  love  to  the  daughters  of  men,"  etc.  Where  does  Moses 
say  that?  Plenty  of  that  kind  of  talk  is  Grecian  and  Roman 
mythology,  but  what  has  that  to  do  with  "The  Mistakes  of 
Moses?"  "They  built  a  tower  (Babel)  to  reach  the  heavens 
and  climb  into  the  abodes  of  the  gods."  Another  of  the 
Colonel's  mistakes.  The  Tower  of  Babel  was  not  built  for 
any  such  purpose.  From  the  frequent  references  of  this 
kind  to  the  gods  in  connection  with  the  religion  of  Moses, 
it  looks  as  if  the  lecturer  was  not  aware  that  the  Jews  were 
not  particularly  in  favor  of  idolatry.  Again  he  says: 
"There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Old  Testament  about  woman 
except  words  of  shame  and  humiliation.  It  did  not  take 
the  pains  to  record  the  death  of  the  mother  of  us  all.  I  have 
no  respect  for  any  book  that  does  not  treat  woman  as  the 
equal  of  man." 

It  is  true  that  Moses  does  not  record  the  death  "of  the 
mother  of  us  all;  "  but  it  is  also  true  that  the  first  account 
of  the  burial  of  any  person  in  the  book  of  Genesis  is  that 
ef  a  woman,  Sarah,  the  wife  of  Abraham.  Moses  simply 


M  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

says  of  Adam:  "The  father  of  us  all,"  "And  he  died;" 
and  in  a  similar  summary  manner  are  all  the  other  men  dis- 
posed of;  but  when  it  comes  to  this  woman  Sarah,  a  special 
lot  has  to  be  purchased  for  her,  and  secured  to  the  family, 
6O  that  her  remains  might  not  be  disturbed;  and  even  now 
in  remembrance  of  the  cave  of  the  field  in  which  she  was 
buried,  a  certain  part  of  our  modern  cemeteries  is  called 
Machpelah.  By  the  side  of  this  fact  how  does  the  declara- 
tion look  that  "  there  is  not  one  word  in  the  Old  Testament 
about  women,  except  words  of  shame  and  humiliation? n 
Suppose  I  turn  the  tables  upon  the  lecturer,  and  say,  I  have 
no  respect  for  any  book  that  does  not  treat  man  as  the  equal 
of  woman.  My  words,  if  applied  to  the  Bible,  would  be 
hardly  less  libelous  than  his. 

His    Temporary    Insanity    Occasioned   by    Heavy   Rains — 
Intellectually   Submerged   in    the    Deluge — Damaging 

Blunders — Ingersoll  up  the  'Wrong  Mountain. 
My  second  specification  is  that  he  not  only  makes  Moses 
§ay  what  he  does  not  say,  but  he  frequently  misrepresents 
what  he  does  say.  I  name  these  particulars:  First,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  flood,  he  gives  the  impression  that,  according  to 
the  Scriptural  account,  all  the  water  that  covered  the  earth 
and  inundated  it  came  out  of  the  clouds  in  the  form  of  rain. 
He  says:  "And  then  it  began  to  rain,  and  it  kept  on  rain- 
ing until  the  water  went  twenty-nine  feet  over  the  highest 
mountains.  How  deep  were  these  waters?  About  five  and 
a  half  miles.  How  long  did  it  rain?  Forty  days.  How 
much  did  it  have  to  rain  a  day?  About  800  feet."  Now 
what  are  the  facts  ?  In  the  verse  which  precedes  the  one 
which  says,  "And  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty  days  and 
forty  nights,"  we  have  this  record, — Gen.,  vii.,  ii. — "  In  the 
600th  year  of  Noah's  life,  in  the  second  month,  the  17th  day  of 


DR.  BY  DEB'S  BE  PLY.  25 

the  month,  the  same  day  were  all  the  fountains  of  the  great 
deep  broken  up,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened." 
"Why  did  not  the  lecturer  mention  this  statement  of  the 
"  breaking  up  of  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep,"  which  is 
generally  supposed  to  refer  to  the  upheaval  or  subsidance  of 
some  large  body  or  bodies  of  land,  perhaps  to  portions  of 
this  western  continent,  and  is  considered  to  have  been  the 
principal  cause  of  the  deluge?  Why  omit  the  supposed 
principal  cause  of  the  deluge,  unless  it  was  his  purpose  to 
make  out  a  case  without  regard  to  the  facts  ? 

Furthermore,  what  authority  has  he  for  saying  that  the 
ark  rested  on  the  top  of  a  mountain  seventeen  thousand  feet 
high,  and  that  the  water  upon  the  earth  was  "  five  and  a 
half  miles  deep? "  Has  he  committed  the  ignorant  blunder 
of  confounding  Agri-Dagh  with  the  hilly  district  to  which 
the  name  was  formerly  applied?  The  lofty  peak  that  now 
bears  the  name  of  Ararat  has  no  such  designation  in  Bib- 
lical history,  and  it  is  the  name  given  to  it  in  compara- 
tively modern  times.  The  Bible  record  is:  "Fifteen  cubits 
upwards  did  the  waters  prevail."  The  Hebrew  cubit  is 
about  twenty- two  inches.  If  we  may  trust  the  conclusions 
of  science,  deluges  have  been  no  unusual  events  in  the  his- 
tory of  this  globe.  Most  of  the  land,  if  not  all  of  it,  no 
matter  how  high  at  present,  has  been  at  some  time  sub- 
merged. Whatever  one  may  think  about  the  accuracy  of 
the  narrative  in  reference  to  the  building  of  the  ark  and  the 
uses  to  which  it  was  put,  there  is  certainly  no  physical 
improbability  in  the  statement  that  that  part  of  the  earth 
which  was  then  above  water  was  thoroughly  inundated. 

Again,  the  gentleman  makes  merry  over  what  he  calls  the 
"  rib  story,"  and  imagines  two  persons  before  the  bar  of 
God,  one  believing  the  "  rib  story  "  and  the  other  denying 
it  The  believer  of  it  is  accepted  by  the  Judge  as  belonging 


26     .  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

in  Heaven,  and  the  denier  of  it  as  belonging  in  Hell.  And 
this  he  puts  before  the  public  as  Bible  doctrine — as  if  any 
man  of  common  sense,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  ever  defended 
so  ridiculous  a  theory.  As  a  further  specimen  of  this  unfair- 
ness, I  present  you  this:  "  Do  you  believe  the  real  God — 
if  there  is  one — ever  killed  a  man  for  making  hair  oil! 
And  yet  you  find  in  the  Pentateuch  that  God  gave  Muses  a 
receipt  for  making  hair  oil  to  grease  Aaron's  beard;  and 
said  if  anybody  made  the  same  hair  oil  he  would  be  killed." 
There  could  hardly  be  written  a  more  complete  misrepre- 
sentation and  perfect  caricature  of  the  whole  subject  than 
this.  The  reference  in  Scripture  is  to  an  anointing  oil,  to  be 
applied,  not  simply  to  the  persons  of  the  priests,  but  to  the 
fiacred  vessels  as  well;  and,  thus  anointed,  they  were  set 
apart  for  what  they  regarded  as  holy  uses.  But  if  this  cus- 
tom which  Mr.  Ingersoll  seeks  to  hold  up  to  ridicule,  was 
simply  Jewish,  there  would  be  some  show  or  plausibility  for 
talking  about  it  as  he  does;  but  he  has  not  even  that  to  jus- 
tify his  attack.  For  this  custom  of  using  anointing  oils  in 
connection  with  religions  services,  and  sacred  persons,  and 
utensils,  was  common  among  the  idolatrous  nations,  and 
even  conspicuous  among  the  rites  of  the  Romans.  And 
even  now  one  often  meets  with  the  spirit  of  the  same  cus- 
tom. I  do  not  know  whether  the  Colonel  is  a  member  of 
the  Masonic  fraternity,  but  he  must  have  seen  representa- 
tives of  that  ancient  Order  pour  out  anointing  oil  upon  the 
corner-stone  of  some  building  which  they  were  engaged  in 
laying.  Why  not  ridicule  that,  and  why  not  also  ridicule 
the  beautiful  custom  of  that  Order  of  dropping  upon  the 
uncovered  coffin  of  a  deceased  member  the  little  sprigs  of 
evergreen  that  the  brethren  bear  in  their  hands  as  they 
march  around  his  open  grave?  It  is  easy  to  see  that  with 
reference  to  every  such  custom,  however  sacred,  one  who 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  27 

takes  the  naked  fact  apart  from  its  associations,  may  find 
abundant  material  for  ridicule.  But  whether  a  fair-minded 
man  will  allow  himself  to  treat  any  serious  subject  in  that 
manner,  is  a  question  upon  which  there  is  no  occasion  that 
I  should  pronounce  judgment.  Mr.  Ingersoll  makes  a  sim- 
ilar blunder  in  what  he  says  about  the  custom  of  sacrificing 
doves  for  the  use  of  priests,  since  the  practice  did  not  exist 
among  the  Hebrews  until  hundreds  of  years  after  the  event 
which  he  seeks  to  ridicule. 

Top-Heavy — Too   Broad  a  Structure    Reared   on  a  Too  Nar- 
row Base. 

My  third  specification  is,  that  he  treats  a  particular  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible  as  the  undisputed  word  of  God.  lie 
assumes  that  this  or  that  is  Bible  doctrine  because  some- 
body may  at  some  time  have  taught  it,  and  then  denounces 
the  whole  Bible  as  unworthy  the  respect  of  mankind. 
This  feature  of  the  address  runs  through  the  whole  of  it. 
But,  in  this  respect,  candor  compels  me  to  say  his  method 
is  that  of  Thomas  Paine  in  his  "Age  of  Reason,"  and  of  a 
certain  class,  but  not  the  better  class,  of  so-called  infidel 
writers.  Mr.  Paine  reproved  the  world  for  believing  what 
he  showed  to  be  unreasonable  doctrines,  and  called  upon 
the  people  to  throw  away  their  Bibles  for  teaching  such 
sentiments;  but  it  was  Mr.  Paine,  and  not  the  Bible  that  was 
in  fault,  for  the  doctrines  which  he  shed  so  much  ink  to 
condemn  are  not  taught  in  the  Bible.  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
method  is  precisely  the  same.  If  he  wishes  to  hold  up  to 
the  contempt  of  mankind  certain  doctrines  that  some  sect 
may  have  believed,  or  even  does  believe,  let  him  announce 
his  subject,  keep  to  his  text,  and  go  ahead;  but  to  go  from 
place  to  place,  exhorting  the  people  everywhere  to  throw 
away  their  Bibles,  under  the  pretense  that  these  represent*- 


28  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


of  his  are  the  undisputed  word  of  God,  is  simply  an 
outrage  upon  the  Christian  public,  and  unworthy  any  man 
who  claims  to  be  fair-minded. 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  references  to  the  clergy  disappoint  me. 
He  speaks  of  them  as  if  they  were  a  set  of  fools,  and  does 
not  add  that  they  are  all  graduates  of  prisons,  and  a  pack  of 
scoundrels  generally.  To  which  gentlemanly  references  we 
need  only  say,  that  in  this  slanderous  speech  he  is  guilty 
of  the  same  offense  against  fairness  and  good  breeding  that 
is  committed  by  any  nominal  Christian  who,  either  through 
Windless  or  perversity,  can  see  nothing  good  in  the  services 
of  the  distinguished  infidels  of  history,  and  who,  to  preju- 
dice the  public  against  them,  resort  to  the  mean  subterfuge 
of  misrepresenting  their  positions,  and  telling  falsehoods 
about  them.  If  any  man,  in  an  address  before  this  com- 
munity, should  treat  the  writings  of  Voltaire  as  shabbily  as 
Mr.  Ingersoll  has  treated  the  writings  of  Moses,  —  and  as  to 
that,  the  entire  Bible,  —  the  Colonel  would  have  to  go  out- 
side the  Psalms  of  David  to  find  imprecations  to  express 
his  contempt.  His  references  to  Andover  have,  of  course, 
nothing  to  do  with  "  The  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  but  they 
relate  to  an  important  subject,  and  are  a  pertinent  illustra- 
tion of  the  eminent  unfairness  of  the  general  address.  This 
is  what  he  says:  "They  have  in  Massachusetts,  at  a  place 
called  Andover,  a  kind  of  minister  factory;  and  every  Pro- 
fessor in  that  factory  takes  an  oath  in  every  five  years  that, 
so  help  him  God,  he  will  not  during  the  next  five  years 
intellectually  advance;  and  probably  there  is  no  oath  he 
could  easier  keep.  They  believe  the  same  creed  they  first 
taught  when  the  foundation  stone  was  laid,  and  now,  when 
they  send  out  a  minister  they  brand  him,  as  hardware  from 
Birmingham  and  Sheffield.  And  every  man  who  knows 
where  he  was  educated  knows  his  creed,  knows  every  argu- 
ment of  his  creed,  every  book  that  he  has  read,  and  just 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  28 

what  be  amounts  to  intellectually,  and  knows  that  he  will 
shrink  and  shrivel  and  become  more  and  more  stupid  day 
after  day  until  he  meets  with  death." 

My  personal  sympathy  with  the  Andover  Theological 
School  is  not,  as  you  may  suppose,  very  deep  and  ardent. 
I  respect  the  generosity  and  self-sacrifice  of  the  five  nobk 
minds — one  of  whom  was  a  woman — that  founded  the  insti- 
tution in  1807,  and  the  aid  which  it  has  given  to  liberal  and 
exact  scholarship.  On  the  whole,  I  do  not  like  the  rule  to  which 
Mr.  Ingersoll  refers.  Probably  many  of  those  in  charge  of 
the  institution  do  not.  I  understand  it  to  be  a  custom  con- 
tingent upon  certain  endowments  made  long  ago,  and  which 
is  observed  as  a  matter  of  form.  But  the  rule  is  not  fairly 
open  to  the  objection  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  makes  against  it 
First,  it  simply  relates  to  the  theological  professors,  and 
does  not  concern  the  students.  Second,  it  compels  no  man 
to  take  it  who  does  not  wish  to.  The  University  says,  in 
effect,  we  believe  in  certain  doctrines;  we  desire  the  instruc- 
tion of  this  institution  to  be  in  accordance  with  these  ideas. 
Can  you  conscientiously  teach  them?  If  so,  we  wish  you; 
if  not,  we  do  not  wish  you.  But  if  you  come  to  us,  you 
are  not  compelled  to  remain,  but  can  go  where  you  will,  and 
when  you  will,  and  teach  what  you  please;  but  so  long  as 
yon  remain  in  the  service  of  this  institution  we  expect  you 
to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  its  founders.  "What  is  there  in 
this  that  is  particularly  narrow  and  dementing?  But  the 
Colonel  repudiates  his  own  positions.  He  says:  "  The  com- 
mon school  is  the  bread  of  life,  but  there  should  be  nothing 
taught  in  the  school  except  what  somebody  knows;  any- 
thing else  should  not  be  maintained  by  a  system  of  general 
taxation." 

Ingersoll's   Inconsistency! 

(  But,  let  us  inquire,  who  is  to  decide  "what  somebody 
knows? "  Practically,  the  answer  is,  the  people,  or  their 


30  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

representatives,  in  school  boards,  committees,  etc.  They 
select  the  text- books,  and  they  expect  instructors  whom  they 
engage  to  follow  them,  for  the  text-books  are  assumed  to 
embody  what  is  true  on  the  subjects  to  which  they  relate. 
What  would  the  lecturer  say  of  a  teacher  in  one  of  our  public 
schools  who  should  to-day  teach  the  rejected  doctrine  that 
the  sun  revolves  about  the  earth?  What,  but  this:  turn 
him  out  and  put  some  one  in  his  place  who  teaches  the 
truth — which,  being  interpreted,  means,  teaches  according 
to  the  authorized  text- books.  Why,  on  the  very  occasion  of 
the  lecture  itself,  after  the  Colonel  had  denounced  And-jver 
for  pledging  loyalty  to  certain  doctrines,  and  which  act  he 
characterizes  as  so  harmful  to  freedom  of  thought,  he  him- 
self demands  of  the  people  whom  he  is  addressing  that  they 
will  never  support  a  certain  form  of  doctrine,  nor  give  money 
to  aid  in  building  any  church  in  which  they  are  taught. 
His  language  is:  "I  would  have  every  one  who  hears  me 
swear  that  he  will  never  contribute  another  dollar  to  build 
another  church  in  which  is  taught  such  infamous  lies." 
Mark  you,  not  simply  a  pledge  for  five  years,  but  they  are 
never  to  change  their  views.  My  friends,  is  there  no  such 
thing  as  consistency  in  belief?  Is  one  a  bigot  because  he 
says,  This  is  what  I  believe,  and  this,  therefore,  I  defend? 
Are  these  men  to  be  ridiculed  and  assailed,  and  only  those 
who  shirk  such  responsibility  to  be  held  up  as  patterns  and 
guides?  Brethren,  I  am  not  speaking  of  some  sophomoric 
oration,  but  about  the  deliberate  thought  of  a  man  who  has 
made  himself  famous  in  this  line  of  labor,  and  of  whom  our 
townsman  who  gracefully  introduced  him  said,  "  a  man  who 
does  his  own  thinking,  and  who  thinks  before  he  says." 
Now,  of  every  such  man  it  is  safe  to  say,  he  knows  that 
organization  is  essential  to  the  welfare  of  society,  and  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  liberty  of  thought.  The  free- 
thinkers of  this  country  are  organized  as  well  as  others; 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  81 

it  is  their  right  to  be  if  they  have  anything  to  teach  or 
defend.  A  Christian  combination,  against  which  some  peo- 
ple hurl  their  anathemas,  is  simply  the  grouping  together 
of  those  who  have  a  similar  mind  and  purpose,  the  better  to 
do  this  work  which  they  have  in  common.  Of  course  there 
has  been  in  connection  with  some  of  these  denominations  a 
fearful  amount  of  bigotry.  When  we  come  to  that  topic  we 
are  quite  at  home.  Bigotry  is  no  friend  of  ours:  we  owe 
him  no  service.  The  denomination  which  this  church  rep- 
resents has  received  from  the  dominant  sects  about  us  a 
/ 

pretty  large  share  of  persecution  and  abuse.  But,  for  all 
that,  we  do  not  propose  to  follow  the  lecturer's  example  and 
call  our  brethren  hard  names,  simply  because  they  apply 
such  epithets  to  us. 

He   Has   no   Poetry   in    His   Soul ;   Ergo,    etc. 

My  fourth  specification  is,  that  he  misrepresents  the  wri- 
tings of  Moses,  and,  as  to  that,  the  entire  Bible,  by  treating 
its  metaphoric  language  as  literal  statements. 

Think  of  a  man,  in  this  age  of  light,  speaking  of  ;he  pic- 
tured representation  of  the  Old  Testament  in  this  way: 
"  They  believed  that  an  angel  could  take  a  lever,  raise  a 
window,  and  let  out  the  desired  quantity  of  moisture.  I 
find  out  in  the  Psalms  that  he  bowed  the  heavens  and  came 
down."  I  wonder  if  the  gentleman  can  see  anything  but 
mere  literalism  in  this  passage?  "As  the  mountains  round 
about  Jerusalem,  so  the  Lord  is  round  about  His  people  from 
henceforth,  even  forever."  Like  other  nations,  the  Hebrews 
have  their  patriotic,  descriptive,  didactic,  and  lyrical  poems 
in  the  same  varieties  as  other  nations ;  but  with  them,  unlike 
other  nations,  whatever  may  be  the  form  of  their  poetry,  it 
always  possesses  the  characteristic  of  religion.  Even  their 
patriotic  songs  are  a  part  of  their  religion.  The  Jews  have 
taught  the  world  its  devotional  poetry.  If  there  is  to  be 

3 


82  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

found  anywhere  conceptions  of  the  Deity  and  of  the  universe 
more  remarkable  for  their  sublimity  and  grandeur  than  are 
met  with  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews,  I  know  not  where 
to  look  for  them.  Certainly  when  they  are  compared  with 
the  religious  poems  of  other  countries,  most  nearly  contem- 
poraneous, as  those  of  Homer  and  Hesiod,  they  are  so  vastly 
superior  as  to  lead  to  the  belief  that,  if  the  poets  of  idola 
trous  Greece  drew  their  inspiration  from  human  genius  and 
learning,  those  of  Judea  had  a  higher  illumination. 

Additional    Misrepresentations. 

My  fifth  specification  is,  that  the  representation  given  in 
the  lecture  of  the  Hebrews  as  a  people,  is  almost  wholly  in- 
correct, both  as  to  the  work  undertaken  by  them  and  the 
effect  of  that  work  upon  mankind. 

We  have  no  disposition  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  ignorance, 
cruelty  and  superstition  of  the  Hebrew  race  in  the  early 
periods  of  their  history.  There  was  but  little  in  them  that 
gave  the  promise  of  a  great  nation  when  Moses  led  them 
out  of  Egypt.  They  were  low  in  the  scale  of  civilization. 
Many  of  the  things  done  by  them  we  cannot  justify,  and 
we  are  not  required  to  do  so.  But  what  arrests  our  atten- 
tion is,  that  almost  from  the  first  they  show  a  gradual  im- 
provement in  their  condition,  and  finally  reach  that  proud 
pre-eminence  when  Jerusalem  became  the  Athens  of  its 
day.  There  are  two  points  of  view  from  which  to  judge  of 
the  early  history  of  any' people:  one  is,  to  compare  it  with 
that  of  contemporary  nations,  and  the  other  is,  to  compare 
it  with  our  own  time.  It  is  manifest  that  the  former  is  the 
proper  basis  of  judgment.  Consider,  then,  as  already  inti- 
mated, who  the  people  were  that  Moses  thus  led  out  of 
Egypt.  Reflect  that  they  were  but  children  in  intelligence, 
and  that  the  higher  forms  of  thought  had  but  little  influence 
over  them;  and  that  if  they  were  held  to  the  law  of  duty, 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  83 

and  organized  into  a  nation,  it  must  be  by  such  material 
forms  and  simple  customs  as  they  could  comprehend.  Re- 
flect, furthermore,  that  these  people  had  been  brought  up  in 
the  midst  of  idolatry,  and  that  in  leaving  Egypt  they  did 
not  get  away  from  its  influences,  but  that,  wherever  they 
went,  they  were  assailed  by  it;  that  idolatry  was  almost  the 
universal  form  of  worship,  and  that  it  was  a  m  ighty  task  to 
educate  these  people  in  the  doctrine  of  the  one  only  living 
and  true  God,  and  hold  them  to  it.  Reflect,  furthermore, 
that  to  secure  this  end  much  might  then  be  done  which, 
under  the  circumstances,  would  be  at  least  excusable,  that 
should  not  be  done  now.  Fairness  requires  that  we  con- 
sider whether  the  custom  originated  with  the  Jews  them- 
selves, and  what  was  its  spirit  and  purpose. 

Prominent  mention  is  made  in  the  lecture  of  polygamy 
in  connection  with  the  Jew»,  and  one  would  infer  from 
what  he  says  that  the  custom  of  pluralitv  of  wives  originated 

v  I  «/  O 

with  them,  and  that  it  was  a  custom  peculiar  to  them. 
This  is  his  language:  "Is  there  a  woman  here  who  believes 
in  the  institution  of  polygamy?  Is  there  a  man  here  who 
believes  in  that  infamy?  You  say 'no,  we  do  not.'  Then 
you  are  better  than  your  God  was  4,000  years  ago.  Four 
thousand  years  ago  he  believed  in  it,  taught  it,  and  upheld 
it."  The  facts  appear  to  be  these:  Polygamy  has  existed 
from  time  immemorial.  Even  in  the  Homeric  age  of  the 
Greeks  it  prevailed  to  some  extent,  and,  though  not  known 
in  republican  Rome,  it  practically  prevailed  under  the 
Empire,  owing  to  the  prevalence  of  divorce;  but  in  what 
we  call  the  Eastern  nations  the  custom  has  been  almost 
universal,  being  sanctioned  by  all  religions,  including  that 
of  Mohammedanism.  In  this  regard  the  Hebrews,  to  a  cer- 
.  tain  extent,  followed  the  prevalent  custom  viz:  the  law  of 
Moses  did  not  forbid  it,  but  did  contain  many  provisions 
against  its  worst  abuses,  and  such  as  were  intended  to 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INGEBSOLL. 

restrict  it  within  narrow  limits;  and,  aa  the  spirit  of  the 
Hebrew  religion  advanced  the  civilization  of  the  nation, 
the  practice  more  and  more  fell  into  disuse,  until  it  finally 
died  out;  and  in  the  glimpses  of  Jewish  life  which  the  New 
Testament  gives  us,  there  are  no  traces  of  it  discernible. 
Since  the  Hebrew  race  the  world  over,  for  some  2,000  years, 
has  as  much  as  any  other  people  discountenanced  such 
practices,  though  still  firmly  believing  in  Moses  as  the 
prophet  of  God,  it  is  clear  that  they  do  not  consider  polyg- 
amy any  part  of  the  Jewish  system,  but  a  custom  permit- 
ted for  a  season  because  so  universally  practiced  by  the 
surrounding  nations. 

Doctor   Ryder   Propounds  a   Question. 

But  just  here  comes  in  a  question  of  high  importance. 
If  there  is  nothing  in  Judaism  to  exalt  woman — and  every 
reference  to  her  in  their  sacred  books  is  one  of  "  humiliation 
and  shame  " — how  happens  it  that  the  Jews  discarded  the 
custom  of  polygamy  some  two  thousand  years  ago,  while 
the  practice  still  prevails  among  the  nations  of  the  East, 
and  notably  in  Mohammedanism,  which,  in  so  many  respects, 
takes  the  external  form  of  Judaism?  The  truth  is,  that  great 
injustice  has  been  done  to  the  real  religion  of  the  Hebrews, 
by  both  Christians  and  unbelievers.  We  have  judged  it  too 
exclusively  by  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  mere  letter  of  it  at 
that  Real  Judaism  is  not  the  Old  Testament,  but  that 
which  has  come  out  of  it — the  result  of  its  growth,  and  the 
expansion  of  its  inherent  forces.  Long  before  the  advent 
of  our  Lord  the  Mosaic  law  had  virtually  given  way  to  the 
Jewish  religion,  and  it  is  that  religion,  the  spirit  of  which 
in  the  beginning  so  largely  came  from  the  great  law-giver 
himself  that  has  had  three  thousand  years  of  existence  to 
certify  its  right  to  live,  and  which  to-day  assigns  it  a  most 
honorable  place  among  the  religions  of  humanity.  And  in 


DR.  RYDER'S  PEPLY.  86 

dismissing  this  branch  of  our  subject,  it  seems  pertinent  to 
inquire,  where  did  Moses  obtain  his  religious  ideas?  The. 
Egyptians  had  reached  high  advancement  in  the  arts  and 
sciences  in  the  time  of  Moses,  but  their  degradation  in  refer- 
ence to  religion  is  unmistakable.  It  is  said  of  Moses  that 
he  "  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
was  mighty  in  words  and  deeds;  "  and  he  was  no  doubt 
greatly  aided  by  what  he  had  learned  from  them,  but  it 
seems  too  evident  to  admit  of  discussion  that  he  did  not  get 
his  religious  ideas  from  that  source.  Whence  came  they? 
But,  whatever  may  be  our  answer  to  this  question,  there 
can  be,  it  seems  to  me,  but  one  opinion  as  to  the  respect 
due  to  the  illustrious  religious  leader  who  has  made  upon 
the  race  so  profound  an  impression  for  good. 

The  five  specifications  now  before  you  cover  the  evidence 
we  offer  of  the  correctness  of  our  general  proposition,  viz.: 
that  the  address  upon  "  The  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  is  a  con- 
spicuous illustration  of  prejudice  and  unfairness. 

Ingersoll  Admits  His  Sad  Need  of  Inspiration. 

Col.  Ingersoll  uses  this  language:  "  Nothing  needs  inspir- 
ation but  a  falsehood  or  a  mistake.  A  fact  never  went  into 
partnership  with  a  miracle."  "  A  fact  will  fit  every  other 
fact  in  the  universe,  and  that  is  how  you  can  tell  whether 
or  not  it  is  a  tact."  Suppose  we  test  this  rule.  How  about 
good  and  evil,  truth  and  error,  the  mysterious  and  the  evi- 
dent, divine  sovereignty  and  human  freedom,  heat  and  cold, 
art  and  asceticism,  economy  and  benevolence,  government 
and  freedom,  each  of  which  is  an  undisputed  fact,  but  each 
two  facts  that  we  thus  group  together  no  more  fit  each  other 
than  the  centripetal  and  centrifugal  forces,  which,  acting  in 
opposite  directions,  hold  the  universe  together?  My  friends, 
there  is  a  recognizable  distinction  between  the  knowable 
and  unknqwable.  But  the  line  that  separates  the  two  it 


86  .         MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

not  sharply  defined.  The  border  land  between  them  seem* 
sometimes  near  and  at  other  times  very  far  away.  The 
realm  beyond  the  knowable  is  the  realm  of  mystery,  and 
out  of  it  come  some  of  the  most  potential  forces  that  sway 
our  lives.  What  we  call  the  knowable  is  those  things  that 
can  be  demonstrated — can  be  proved  to  be  true  by  a  prac- 
tical method.  But  consider  how  small  a  portion  of  our  real 
life  is  covered  by  any  such  form  of  real  evidence.  For 
neither  our  affections,  nor  our  tastes,  nor  our  judgments, 
nor  our  beliefs,  nor  our  ambitions,  nor  the  higher  expres- 
sions of  our  moral  natures,  can  be  thus  demonstrated. 
They  do  not  in  any  way  depend  upon  the  classification  of 
facts  in  nature,  but  are  cognizable  by  our  consciousness, 
and  are  so  widely  operative  in  our  daily  life,  that  it  almost 
seems  as  if  what  we  call  the  knowable  never  touches  us  at  all. 
Science  has  nothing  to  say  about,  or  to  do  with,  either 
morals,  religion,  benevolence,  duty,  or  inspiration.  The 
sources  of  life,  the  cause  of  thought,  of  affection,  passion, 
hope,  and  love,  are  all  incomprehensible  to  science,  and  will 
remain  so  till  the  end  of  time.  "  There  is  no  science  of  the 
eoul,  any  more  than  there  is  a  prayer  in  mathematics."  How 
utterly,  then,  does  one  misapprehend  and  misstate  the  real 
facts  of  human  experience,  who  teaches  that  "  nothing  needs 
inspiration  but  a  falsehood,  or  a  mistake,"  and  that  one  is  to 
accept  nothing  as  true  which  cannot  be  demonstrated.  How 
much  wiser  and  how  much  better  are  the  words  of  St.  Au- 
gustine, when  he  says:  "  God  exists  more  truly  than  he  can 
be  thought  of;  He  can  be  thought  of  more  truly  than  he 
can  be  spoken  of."  For  myself,  I  reverently  believe  that 
the  Bible  contains  a  revelation  from  God.  1  say  contains 
a  revelation  from  God,  not  that  it  is  in  itself  such  a  revela- 
tion, for  the  Bible,  as  such,  was  not  revealed.  The  inspira- 
tion that  breathes  through  its  pages  is  of  some  of  the  things 
written,  but  not  of  all;  the  inspiration  is  rather  of  the 


DR.  RYDER'S  REP^Y.  91 

thought,  purpose,  the  leadings  of  God,  than  of  the  letter  in 
which  they  are  expressed.  There  is,  to  my  mind,  no  appeal 
from  the  words  of  Christ  once  satisfied  that  he  uttered  the 
sayings  which  are  attributed  to  Him  in  the  Gospels,  and 
they  are,  to  me  at  least,  infallibly  true,  and  literally  "  the 
words  of  eternal  life." 

Ingersoll'a   "  Religion   of  Humanity "   All   Right   Except 
the   Religion. 

The  influence  of  such  an  address  is  to  completely  destroy 
the  religious  faith  which  the  people  now  have,  and  give 
them  nothing  in  return.  It  is  true  Mr.  Ingersoll  commends 
to  his  hearers  "  the  religion  of  humanity."  But  what  does 
he  mean  by  it?  The  answer  is,  he  means  simply  Atheism, 
which  is  virtually  the  rejection  of  all  religion,  since  it  is 
the  denial  of  the  being  of  God  himself.  Now  with  God 
dethroned,  the  name  religion  has  no  further  use.  What, 
then,  is  the  religion  of  humanity  to  those  who  deny  the 
existence  of  God,  and  leave  everything  either  to  chance  or  in- 
exorable law?  One  might  infer  from  the  assumption  of  these 
Atheistic  teachers  that  free-thinkers  are  the  only  people  who 
have  any  religion  of  humanity,  or  who  practice  it.  The 
general  impression  made  by  the  Colonel's  lecture  is  that 
Christians  are  a  bad  lot — mean,  hypocritical,  demented  kind 
of  folks;  and  that  bright  and  progressive  people,  such  as 
"  have  brains  "  (though  it  does  not  require  a  large  supply 
of  that  article  to  qualify  one  to  ridicule  another  person's 
religion)  and  "  do  their  own  thinking,"  reject  all  such 
absurdities  as  revealed  religion,  and  are  governed  by  some 
sort  of  a  higher  law. 

Now  that  this  view  of  human  nature,  so  complimentary 
and  congenial,  withal,  is  "  quite  taking"  is  very  likely  true. 
One  likes  to  be  patted  on  the  back  in  this  way,  and  be 
called  "  progressive,"  and  not  hide-bound  like  those  old 


88  MISTAKES  OF  IXGERSOLL. 

fogies,  and  stupid  theological  graduates,  and  owlish  minis- 
ters, and  such  sort  of  folks.  But  somehow  it  does  not  seem 
to  stay  upon  the  public  stomach  after  it  is  taken.  For  this 
i<  just  the  kind  of  talk  in  which  noisy  infidels  have  indulged 
for  the  past  300  years.  "Christianity  is  virtually  extinct," 
they  say,  "  and  now  we  are  to  have  a  new  order  of  tilings." 
But,  for  some  reason,  Christianity  does  not  die,  ;aud  the 
world  moves  forward  in  much  the  old  way." 

The  truth  is,  some  things  seem  very  well  as  declamation 
ihat  utterly  elude  you  when  you  attempt  to  embody  them 
in  vital  forms.  As  theories  they  look  \vell,  but  in  practice 
th'ey  are  worthless.  They  are  as  beautiful  as  foam  and  just 
as  substantial.  Where  are  the  monuments  of  free  religion? 
In  the  struggle  for  religious  liberty  in  France  I  recognize 
the  powerful  influence  of  Voltaire;  and  an  advocacy  of  a 
true  democracy  in  this  country,  very  few,  if  any,  did  more 
by  their  pen  than  Thomas  Paine;  but,  aside  from  these 
general  benefits  to  society,  where  are  the  testimonies  of  the 
work  they  wrought?  What  did  they  do  for  the  more  per- 
fect organization  of  society,  and  for  the  elevation  and 
purity  of  the  public  morals?  I  repeat,  where  are  the  mon- 
uments of  this  free  religion?  Has  it  nothing  to  show  in  its 
own  behalf  but  slanderous  assertions?  And  has  its  most 
distinguished  advocate  in  this  country  degenerated  into  a 
jesting  scoffer?  Who  built  the  institutions  of  learning 
throughout  the  Christian  world,  and  who  supports  them? 
Who  organized  the  institutions  of  charity,  and  who  sustains 
them?  I  repeat,  this  "religion  of  humanity,"  whatever 
that  may  be,  does  well  enough  to  talk  about,  but,  somehow, 
when  there  is  solid  work  to  be  done  nobody  wants  it,  and 
somehow,  nobody  seems  to  do  or  pay  much  towards  sup- 
porting it.  The  leading  universities  in  Germany  that  did 
so  much  forty  years  ago  in  disseminating  Rationalism  are 
now  comparatively  empty,  while  those  of  the  religious 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  89 

schools  are  patronized.  To-day  every  prominent  university 
iu  Germany  except  that  in  Heidelberg  is  controlled  in  the 
interests  of  revealed  religion,  and  Heidelberg  has  but  very 
few  theological  students  left.  And,  if  one  may  judge  of 
the  effects  of  teaching  by  the  deportment  of  those  taught, 
it  will  be,  I  think,  nearly  the  unanimous  opinion  of  travelers 
that  they  are  very  badly  instructed,  for  a  prominent  part  of 
the  business  of  the  students  of  that  institution  seems  to  be 
to  get  up  quarrels  with  each  other  and  with  the  public,  and 
fight  duels.  The  truth  is,  that  the  sober  second  thought  of 
the  thinking  world  has  shut  its  "  colossal  shears"  upon  the 
theories  of  Bauer,  Strauss,  and  Renan,  and  no  wisdom  of 
man  will  ever  reunite  the  dissevered  fragments. 

Dr.  Ryder  tells  a  Little   Story  for   the  Sake  of  Illustration. 

How  strange  it  is  that  nearly  all  the  world  should  be  such 
simpletons,  and  that  human  nature  persists  in  exploding  all 
these  fine  theories  that  have  no  real  religion  in  them.  But 
then,  you  know,  some  people  are  wise  in  their  own  conceits. 
Let  me  relate  an  incident:  "  An  eminent  lawyer  had  in 
court  a  very  clear  case.  After  presenting  an  array  of  testi- 
mony, law,  and  precedents  that  he  thought  was  unanswer- 
able, he  submitted  his  case.  To  his  utter  astonishment,  the 
Judge,  who  was  bigotedly  and  dogmatically  on  the  opposite 
side  in  prejudice,  decided  every  point  of  the  case  against 
him.  After  he  had  recovered  from  his  amazement,  he  arose 
and  proceeded  to  read  Blackstone  and  leading  jurists,  the 
statute  law,  and  judicial  decisions,  flatly  contradicting  the 
decision  of  the  Court.  The  Judge  pompously  interrupted 
him  with:  'That  will  do  you  no  good;  the  mind  of  the 
court  is  made  up;  cannot  change  it.'  The  lawyer  replied: 
'  I  have  no  expectation  of  changing  the  opinion  of  the 
court.  I  do  not  question  the  infallibility  and  the  infallible 
accuracy  of  its  decision.  I  only  want  to  show  what  consum- 


40  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

mate  fools  Blackstone,  Kent,  and  all  jurists,  our  legislators, 
and  all  the  judges,  except  the  judge  of  this  court,  must  have 
been.'" 

Friends  of  humanity,  lovers  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus, 
can  we  afford  to  trifle  with  such  a  momentous  issue  as  this! 
Is  there  nothing  sacred,  nothing  but  the  mere  husk  of  things 
in  which  it  is  safe  for  us  to  place  our  faith?  Is  there  no  per- 
manent joy  this  side  the  grave,  and  only  the  blackness  of 
darkness  beyond?  Is  the  religion  in  which  so  many  millions 
trust  simply  a  delusion,  and  the  God  whom  we  adore  merely 
a  myth?  If  so,  why  are  we  in  this  world,  and  what  is  this 
world!  What  is  anything  for  but  to  lure  us  into  disap- 
pointment? 

Nay,  we  believe  in  God,  the  Father  everlasting,  and  in 
Jesus  Christ,  His  Son.  In  the  love  which  They  awaken,  we 
desire  to  live;  and  in  the  trust  which  They  inspire,  we  hope 
to  die. 


DR.  UERFORD'S  REPLY.  41 


DR.    HERFORD'S    REPLY. 


ALL  through  my  life  I  have  felt  a  very  deep  sympathy 
for  those  who  have  become  alienated  from  Christianity  by 
the  irrational  and  unworthy  things  often  taught  in  its  name. 
It  seems  such  a  miserable,  gratuitous  loss,  as  if  there  was 
not  enough  to  make  even  the  purest  faith  often  dim  and 
doubtful  without  it  being  made  more  so  by  the  follies  of 
those  who  should  strengthen  men  in  it !  But  so  it  is.  And 
of  course  one  cannot  expect  men  in  that  strong  reaction  to 
be  very  discriminating  in  what  they  attack.  But  there  are 
limits!  A  man  is  not  absolved  from  the  duty  of  thinking 
and  speaking  fairly  by  having  come  to  reject  the  popular 
opinions  of  society.  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  this  recent 
lecture  of  Col.  Ingersoll's  overpasses  all  just  limits.  I 
frankly  own  its  brilliant  eloquence,  its  irresistible  humor, 
and  the  passionate  impulses  of  tender  human  sympathy 
which  flash  out  in  it.  I  can  quite  understand  many  being 
carried  along  by  these.  But  afterward  has  to  come  the  sober 
thinking  and  the  honest  questioning.  What  does  it  amount 
to?  Are  its  positions  true?  Are  its  arguments  fair?  It 
seems  to  me  that  they  are  glaringly  the  opposite.  The 
whole  test  that  he  applies  to  his  subject  is  a  mistake;  the 
way  in  which  he  applies  it  is  not  even  moderately  just;  its 
representations  are  one-sided;  its  illustrations  are  carica- 
ture. And  the  worst  of  all  is  that  there  is  no  sign  even  of 
any  desire  or  attempt  to  be  fai** 


42  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

•« 
The   Ingersoll  Paradox. 

The  first  of  Col.  Ingersoll's  mistakes,  is  in  the  whole  point 
of  view  in  which  he  places  the  Bible  in  order  to  make  it  the 
easier  target  for  his  wit.  He  starts  by  repudiating  any  idea 
of  its  having  been  written  by  God's  inspiration;  and  yet 
all  through  talks  as  if  God  were  responsible  for  it — as  if 
God  had  said  this  and  threatened  that — and  becomes  quite 
heroic  in  his  declaration  that  God  may  damn  him,  but  he 
won't  believe  such  things!  When  once  inspiration  is  put 
aside,  such  declarations  are  mere  clap-trap!  When  you  look 
through  all  this,  .you  find  that  in  reality  he  simply  regards 
the  Bible  as  the  work,  the  ideas  of  men.  Very  well;  then 
take  it  so,  and  judge  it  fairly  in  that  light!  If  the  book  of 
Genesis  is,  as  Col.  Ingersoll  believes,  the  writings  and  the 
ideas  of  ancient  men,  then  do  not  attack  it>  because  the  ideas 
are  not  those  of  men  to-day.  But  that  is  what  he  is  con- 
stantly doing.  He  is  very  fond  of  saying,  "The  question  is 
not,  is  it  inspired,  but  is  it  true?"  That  sounds  very  plaus- 
ible, but  you  know,  as  applied  to  any  ancient  book,  it  is 
simply  nonsense.  It  is  a  test  which  you  don't  apply  to  any 
other  ancient  book  in  the  world.  You  do  not  try  Homer's 
"  Iliad  "  by  the  test  of  whether  it  is  true.  When  a  clay 
tablet  is  dug  up  at  Nineveh,  or  a  papyrus  is  found  in  some 
mummy-wrappings,  you  don't  ask,  Is  it  true?  and  if  not, 
throw  it  away.  The  question  about  all  such  things  is  not, 
"Are  they  true?"  but  "Are  they  genuine  relics  and  repre- 
sentations of  the  thought  of  the  ancient  world?"  By-and- 
by  indeed  will  come  the  question,  how  far  any  records  or 
statements  in  such  ancient  writings  can  be  taken  to  throw 
light  on  actual  history — how  far  their  statements  are  alle- 
gorical or  poetical,  or  mere  ancient  tradition?  Well  and 
good.  And  by  all  means  let  those  questions  be  applied  to 
Genesis;  apply  them  just  as  you  would  to  any  other  ancient 


DR.  BERFORD'S  REPLY.  48 

writings;  but  in  the  name  of  common  fairness  don't  pick  it 
to  pieces  by  a  minute  verbal  criticism,  and  a  strained  liber- 
ality which  would  only  be  justifiable  on  the  ground  of  its 
being  verbally  inspired.  That  is  a  mistake  which  may  be 
merely  a  mental  confusion,  but  a  graver  one  lies  beyond. 

Ingersoll's   Exaggerations  and   False   Assertions. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  not  only  applies  a  kind  of  test  to  the  book 
of  Genesis  which  he  would  not  think  of  applying  to  any 
other  book,  but  he  does  not  even  apply  his  own  test  fairly. 
He  stands  upon  the  very  letter,  but  he  constantly  misrep- 
resents and  twists  the  letter.  He  exaggerates,  makes  things 
worse  than  they  are;  if  he  can  make  a  bad  meaning  anyhow 
he  does  so.  He  says:  "The  gentleman  that  wrote  Genesis 
begins  by  telling  us  that  God  made  the  universe  out  of 
nothing."  It  does  not  say  so.  It  simply  says:  "In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth."  A  little 
further  on  he  makes  great  fun  of  the  grass  being  created  on 
the  second  day,  while  the  sun  was  not  created  till  the  third 
day,  so  that  the  grass  was  growing  without  having  "  ever 
been  touched  by  a  gleam  of  light."  Yet  right  before  him 
were  these  words,  at  the  beginning  of  all:  "  And  God  said, 
let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light."  Of  course,  the 
whole  idea  is  that  of  the  world's  childhood,  but  why  strain 
a  point  to  make  it  ridiculous?  It  is  a  far  worse  perversion 
where  he  says:  "You  will  find  by  reading  the  second  chap- 
ter that  God  tried  to  palm  off  on  Adam  a  beast  as  his  help- 
meet." Now  there  is  absolutely  no  justification  for  such  a 
representation.  The  whole  thing  is  a  gratuitious  invention 
of  his  own.  These  are  small  verbal  matters,  but  they  show 
the  utter  unscrupulousness  with  which  those  ancient  tradi- 
tions are  exaggerated  and  distorted  to  make  better  point  for 
his  ridicule. 

And  then,  even  in  larger  things,  he  cannot  be  decently 


44  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

fair,  though  the  explaining  truth  may  lie  on  the  very  sur- 
face. He  quotes  the  first  part  of  the  command  against  mak- 
ing any  graven  image,  and  then  goes  off  into  one  of  its 
tirades  about  that  being  a  law  which  was  "the  death  of  all 
art  "  among  the  Jews.  JSTot  a  word  about  the  closing  part 
of  the  command — really  the  essence  of  it:  "  Thou  shalt  not 
bow  down  to  them,  nor  worship  them !  "  Why,  even  if  it 
were  as  he  implies,  that  Moses  utterly  prohibited  all  the  art 
of  sculpture,  the  making  of  idols  being  merely  one  part,  still, 
which  was  of  most  importance  to  the  world — that  the  Jews 
should  have  cultivated  art  a  little  more,  or  that  they  should, 
even  at  the  cost  of  art  altogether,  be  kept  from  idolatry? 
But  then  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  not  even  true  in  his  fact.  The 
command  was  only  understood  as  a  command  against  idol- 
making,  not  against  other  forms  of  sculpture,  and  the  best 
proof  of  this  is  that  they  did  have  other  forms  of  sculpture 
even  in  Moses'  time,  and  later  had  art  of  no  ignoble  kind. 
Even  there  in  the  wilderness  we  read  how  the  sacred  ark  was 
by  Moses'  command  shadowed  over  by  the  images  of  two 
cherubim,  with  outstretched  wings  made  of  pure  gold,  and 
the  candlestick  was  made  with  branches  which  were  shaped 
like  almonds,  alternately  a  bud  and  a  flower.  And  later, 
when  Solomon  built  the  temple,  we  not  only  read  of  two 
similar  cherubim,  but  of  colossal  size,  extending  their  wings 
over  the  shrine,  but  also  that  "  he  carved  all  the  walls  of  the 
house  round  about  with  carved  figures  of  cherubim  and  palm- 
trees  and  open  flowers;  "  while  in  his  own  palace  we  read  of 
sculptured  pillars,  with  pomegranate  capitals,  and  images 
of  oxen  and  lions,  round  the  great  brazen  "laver." 

Or,  take  his  representation  of  Christians  thinking  of 
Heaven  as  a  place  where  their  happiness  will  be  enhanced 
by  seeing  the  tortures  of  the  damned.  Here  he  rises  to  the 
height  of  his  most  fiery  indignation.  And  it  is  a  horrible 
idea.  But  then,  who  holds  it — who  preaches  it?  It  is  an 


DR.  HER  FORD'S  REPLY.  4i 

idea  of  Heaven  that  was  prevalent  among  one  sect  of  Chris- 
tians a  century  ago.  But  even  they  have  not  preached  it 
for  a  century.  And  yet  he  says,  without  a  word  of  limita- 
tion, "  This  is  the  Christian  view  of  Heaven,"  and  makes  a 
powerful  appeal  to  his  hearers  not  to  give  a  "dollar  to  any 
man  to  preach  that  falsehood."  Why,  there  is  not  a  church 
in  all  the  land  where  he  could  find  a  man  preaching  that 
to  give  his  dollar  to;  no,  not  even  if  the  person  were  only 
i  stump  politician,  turned  preacher  in  the  slack  season  be- 
tween campaigns. 

And  the  same  of  his  representation  of  the  attitude  of 
Christianity  toward  those  who  do  not  believe  in  the  early 
traditions  of  Genesis.  He  represents  Christianity  as  teach- 
ing that  any  man  who  does  not  believe  the  "  rib  story  "  will 
go  to  Hell,  however  good  he  was  in  other  respects.  Is  that 
an  honest  representation?  Why,  even  if  all  orthodoxy 
preached  that,  orthodoxy  is  not  all  of  Christianity.  Ha» 
Col.  Ingersoll  ever  heard  of  Channing  and  Parker  and  Starr 
King?  Are  the  bodies  of  the  Unitarian  church,  the  T:ii- 
versalists,  the  Christians,  the  Quakers,  not  worth  a  passing 
word?  Did  he  not  know  when  he  put  that  champion  joke 
about  the  "  rib  story  "  that  he  was  representing  as  the  teach- 
ing of  the  churches  what  many  entire  churches,  and  the  best 
men  in  all  churches,  never  have  held,  nor  preached,  nor 
countenanced  in  any  way?  Yet  he  comes  rampaging  into 
the  field,  with  a  whoop  and  a  yell,  brandishing  his  shillclah, 
defying  Christianity,  calling  ministers  "owls  "  and  "  idiots," 
and  swooping  round  as  if  he  were  the  first  who  had  found 
out  a  little  common  sense  about  the  Bible!  But  after  all, 
the  real  matter  at  issue  is  not  as  to  this  or  that  exaggerated 
or  unfair  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  has  it  any 
real,  substantial  worth?  It  has.  It  gives  us  the  origin  of 
the  world's  noblest  religious  faith;  it  shows  us  the  purest 
faith  of  to-day  in  its  first  roots  in  the  far-off  ancient  world; 


46  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

and  so  I  think  it  strengthens  our  conviction  that  that  faith 
is  not  a  temporary  or  isolated  thing  that  may  be  mistaken, 
but  part  of  that  long  development  of  man  which  surelr 
corresponds  to  the  truth  and  fact  of  the  universe. 

Dr.   Herford's  Story   of  Moses,   with  an  Apt  Illustration — 
The  Germinal  Power  of  the  Pentateuch. 

When  I  hear  people  treating  the  Pentateuch  as  something 
they  would  like  to  see  done  away,  I  cannot  help  wishing 
that  it  could  be  dug  up  afresh  in  these  days  of  curious 
research  into  the  past.  Why,  suppose  that  the  Jews  had  no 
such  books;  and  had  not  known  anything  of  their  origin 
except  a  vague  tradition  of  some  sort  of  migration  under 
one  Moses,  and  curiously  fitting  to  this  the  Egyptian  tradi- 
tion— which  is,  you  know,  that  some  thirteen  hundred  years 
before  Christ  a  great  multitude  of  people  had  gone  out  of 
Egypt  led  by  an  Egyptian  priest,  who  taught  them  many 
things  contrary  to  the  Egyptian  religion,  and  afterward 
changed  his  name  to  Moses.  Well,  supposing  then  these 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  should  be  discovered  somewhere 
— why,  the  world  would  go  wild  over  them.  What  would 
it  matter  whether  it  could  be  settled  that  Moses  did  or  did 
not  write  them — or  that  possibly  they  were  really  not  writ- 
ten till  centuries  after,  and  only  preserved  what  was  believed 
about  him  at  that  later  date — still  the  fact  would  remain 
that  they  take  us  by  traditions,  at  any  rate,  so  much  further 
back  into  the  past,  and  show  us  there  one  of  the  very  noblest 
stories  of  the  world; — for  that  is  what  the  story  of  Moses 
is.  Take  off  all  the  discount  you  will  for  exaggeration — I 
dare  say  the  numbers  are  immensely  exaggerated — suppose 
the  idea  of  his  having  been  led  by  God  speaking  to  him  to 
have  been  only  his  own  intense  consciousness  of  what  was 
best,  ascribed  to  God ;  suppose  the  idea  of  his  having  been 
helped  by  miracles  to  have  been  only  his  own  reverent 


DR.  HEPFORD'S  REPLY.  47 

impression,  ascribing  every  trouble  that  came  on  Egypt, 
and  every  favoring  circumstance  to  his  own  people,  to  some 
purposed  and  direct  help  from  God;  all  that  does  not  touch 
the  essence  of  the  story  of  Moses!  There  it  stands — how 
those  Hebrews  through  many  generations  had  sunk  into  the 
Pariah  and  Helot  class  of  that  great  rich  Egyptian  civiliz- 
ation; and  how  at  last  this  Moses  rose  up,  to  rally  them  to 
a  mighty  effort  to  get  right  away  into  some  other  land.  He 
had  been  somehow  brought  up  among  the  Egyptians,  trained 
in  the  sacred  city,  educated  among  the  priests — an  adopted 
son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter — but  he  had  given  it  all  up, 
identified  himself  with  his  down-trodden  people,  and  at  last 
won  for  them  the  liberty  to  go!  And  they  went  out — out 
into  the  great  desert  waste.  What  does  it  matter  that  the 
tradition  of  their  numbers  got  perhaps  enormously  exagger- 
ated ?  If  there  were  only  a  hundredth  part — thirty  thousand 
instead  of  three  millions  in  all — there  were  quite  enough  to 
task  their  leaders  fortitude  to  its  utmost;  and  through  those 
books  we  have  at  least  very  living  glimpses  of  him,  in  his 
efforts  to  keep  them  from  grumbling  and  getting  disheart- 
ened; in  his  efforts  to  keep  them  true  to  his  simple  teach- 
ing of  the  one  Almighty  God;  in  his  lonely  hours  when  he 
was  listening  for  the  eternal  word,  and  shaping  his  best 
thoughts  which  he  believed  came  to  him  from  God,  into  laws 
for  his  people.  And  there  is  the  great  fact,  you  know — 
however  he  did  it — he  did  guide  and  lead  them  through  that 
long  migration,  and  at  last  brought  them  to  the  land  from 
which  their  fathers  had  gone  out  long  before,  and  bade  them 
go  in  and  possess  it!  And  that  multitude  whom  he  led  out 
of  Egypt  a  race  of  slaves,  servile  with  long  oppression,  at 
every  difficulty  talking  of  going  back,  he  had  in  that  forty 
years  knit  into  a  brave,  hardy,  fierce  race — who  did  go  in 
and  possess  the  land  and  became  the  progenitors  of  one  of 
the  world'i  noblest  races.  That  is  the  story  of  Moses 
4 


48  MISTAKES  OF  JNOEfiSOLL. 

— just  the  barest  skeleton  of  it — taking  one,  the  largest, 
most  unmistakable  features;  and  I  say  again  there  is  no 
finer  story  in  history.  And  what  will  you  say  of  a  man  who 
will  make  fun  of  it? 

Why,  what  would  you  think  of  a  man  who  would  go 
around  the  country,  making  fierce  fun  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
holding  up  his  gaunt,  lank  figure  to  ridicule,  burlesquing 
his  speeches,  denouncing  as  lies  some  of  those  quaint  little 
anecdotes,  and  holding  him  up  as  a  fool  and  an  idiot  I  And 
yet  that  glorious  work  that  makes  Lincoln's  name  dear — not 
to  Americans  only  but  to  the  lovers  of  freedom  and  of  man 
in  every  nation — that  work  of  his  was  only  the  modern 
counterpart  of  what  Moses  did  in  the  morning  of  the  world! 

But  the  Pentateuch  is  most  valuable,  not  for  the  light  it 
throws  upon  the  origin  of  a  people,  but  for  the  light  it 
throws  upon  the  origin  of  ideas.  In  the  teachings  of  Moses, 
in  the  religion  of  that  little  migrating  tribe,  by-and-by 
fighting  for  its  foothold  in  Palestine,  we  have  the  begin- 
ings  of  those  thoughts  from  which  have  sprung  the  three 
greatest,  most  living  religions  of  the  world— Judaism, 
Christianity  and  Mahommedanism.  Granted,  the  begin- 
nings are  only  rude,  is  that  any  reason  for  making  fun  of 
them?  What  would  you  think  of  a  man  who  should  take 
one  of  those  rude  urns  that  they  dig  out  of  the  mound  build- 
er's graves  and  put  it  side  by  side  with  some  beautiful  porce- 
lain of  to-day,  and  scoff  and  sneer  at  those  early  dwellers  on 
the  earth  because  the  best  decoration  they  could  make  was 
a  few  rude  scratches  in  the  clay  with  their  flint-knives? 

Already,  even  so  far  off,  the  idea  of  one  Almighty  God, 
that  which  the  priests  of  Egypt  held  as  a  sacred  mystery — 
if  they  did  hold  it — that  leader  of  the- Hebrews  taught  his 
people  as  the  truth  for  all,  and  the  truth  to  be  kept  ever- 
more before  them.  Already,  too,  in  the  old  world,  where 
every  race  shaped  out  its  thought  of  God  in  some  idol  form, 


DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY.  41 

that  leader  was  giving  them  as  the  second  of  his  great  com- 
mands that  they  should  make  no  idol  images  at  all  to  wor- 
ship. Already,  too,  they  had  that  idea  of  a  God  of  Right- 
eousness !  True,  their  idea  of  righteousness  was  not  yet  very 
high,  but  the  best  they  knew  they  ascribed  to  God.  Where 
in  all  the  ancient  world  will  you  find  such  a  description  of 
Deity  as  that  which  Moses  brought  with  him  out  of  the  soli- 
tudes of  Sinai? — "The  Lord;  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and 
gracious,  long  suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth;  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  bearing  with  iniquity, 
transgression  and  sin,  but  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the 
guilty." 

The  Mosaic  Religion  of  Humanity. 

Nor  is  this  divine  side  of  that  old  Hebrew  religion  all. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  is  very  strong  on-  the  religion  of  humanity. 
Indeed,  that  is  the  only  real  religion,  he  says.  Well,  where 
did  the  religion  of  humanity  begin  ?  Why,  it  began  there 
— among  those  same  old  Hebrews.  The  religion  of  a  truer 
thought  of  God  and  of  a  better  thought  of  man  went  to- 
gether even  in  their  beginnings,  as  they  did  afterward  when 
they  both  reached  their  culmination  together  in  Christ,  with 
His  great  teaching  of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man. 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  however,  has  nothing  but  the  bitterest 
contempt  for  the  morality  of  the  Pentateuch,  because  it  is 
behind  the  morality  of  to-day !  "  See,  you  are  better  than 
four  God,"  he  cries;  "for  four  thousand  years  ago  He  be- 
lieved in  polygamy,  and  you  don't!  "  The  truth  of  which 
simply  is  that  four  thousand  years  ago  polygamy  existed 
among  the  Jews,  as  everywhere  else  on  earth  then,  and  even 
their  prophets  do  not  come  to  the  idea  of  its  being  wrong. 
But  what  is  there  to  be  indignant  about  in  that?  Simply 
men — whom  Mr.  Ingeraoll  regards,  in  other  lectures,  as 
having  come  up  from  the  brutes — had  then  got  only  so  far 


50  MISTAKES  OF  1SGKRSOLL. 

in  their  ideas  of  marriage.  But  if  their  religion  is  a  good 
one,  what  do  you  expect  to  find  it  doing?  Altogether  al- 
tering, even  so  early,  the  marriage  relation,  or  purifying 
and  elevating  it?  Surely  this  is  all  we  can  look  for,  and 
this  we  find.  I  know  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  says:  "There  is 
not  one  word  about  woman  in  the  Old  Testament,  except 
the  words  of  shame  and  humiliation."  Well,  though  he 
says  he  has  read  the  Bible  over  again  this  year,  I  can  only 
conclude  he  has  read  it  very  hurriedly  and  slightly,  for  not 
only  are  there  such  passages  as  that  of  Naomi  and  Ruth, 
the  Shunamite  woman,  Hannah,  the  mother  of  Samuel,  and 
that  most  beautiful  picture  at  the  close  of  the  book  of  Prov- 
erbs of  a  good  wife,  but  I  think  that  throughout  woman  is 
spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  not  as  the  slave,  but  as  the  compan- 
ion and  the  helpmate.  The  "  wise-hearted  women  "  share 
the  work  of  making  that  goodliest  of  the  tents  which  was  in 
the  desert  wanderings  to  be  the  tabernacle;  Miriam,  the  sister 
of  Moses,  holds  the  place  of  a  prophetess,  and  other  prophet- 
esses we  read  of;  and  the  whole  law  of  marriage  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, with  its  stern  punishment  of  death  for  adultery,  either 
on  the  part  of  man  as  well  as  woman,  shows  the  process  of 
elevation  towards  that  higher  law  of  one  wife  and  one  husband 
which  had  become  universal  by  the  time  of  Christ. 

Or  take  the  slavery  question  again.  Slavery  was  univer- 
sal in  the  ancient  world.  Men  had  not  come  anywhere  to  a 
sense  of  any  inherent  wrongfulness  in  it  for  a  thousand 
years  or  two  after  the  time  of  Moses.  But  mark  where 
this  finer  humanity  of  the  Mosaic  religion  comes  in;  it  al- 
ready brings  glimpses  of  the  idea  of  an  inalienable  right  to 
liberty — though  not  a  perfect  sight  of  it.  The  law  of  the 
Pentateuch  abounds  with  laws  about  the  relation  of  master 
and  slave,  which,  as  compared  with  what  we  know  of  slavery, 
e.  g.,  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  a  thousand  years  later, 
were  simply  a  marvel  of  noble  humanized  thought 


DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY.  51 

And  then  as  to  the  general  tone  and  character  of  that 
Mosaic  law.  Mr.  Ingersoll  pooh-poohs  the  Ten  Command- 
ments as  merely  what  men  knew  before;  knew  all  along. 
But  such  a  law  as  this:  "  Thou  shalt  not  have  in  thy  bag 

v  O 

divers  weights,  a  great  and  a  small;  but  thou  shalt  have  a 
perfect  and  just  weight — a  perfect  and  just  measure  shalt 
thou  have — for  all  that  do  such  things,  and  all  that  do  un- 
righteously, are  an  abomination  unto  the  Lord  thy  God;" 
and  this:  "  If  a  man  shall  steal  an  ox  or  a  sheep  he  shall 
restore  five  oxen  for  an  ox  and  four  sheep  for  a  sheep;  "  and 
this:  "Ye  shall  have  one  manner  of  law,  as  well  for  the 
stranger  as  for  one  of  your  own  country,  for  I  am  the  Lord 
your  God;  "  and  this:  "Thou  shalt  not  oppress  an  hired 
servant  that  is  poor  and  needy — whether  he  be  of  thy  breth- 
ren, or  of  the  strangers  that  are  in  the  land;  at  his  day  thou 
shalt  give  him  his  hire;  neither  shall  the  sun  go  down  upon 
it,  for  he  is  poor  and  setteth  his  heart  upon  it."  There  is  a 
good  deal  of  the  religion  of  humanity  about  these,  isn't 
there? 

And  other  laws  come  in  here  and  there  with  such  a  kind 
consideration  for  poverty  and  need.  When  a  man  har- 
vested he  must  not  reap  the  corners  of  his  field,  nor  gather 
up  the  gleanings,  and  if  he  forgot  a  sheaf  and  left  it  in  the 
field  he  must  not  go  again  and  fetch  it.  "  Thou  shalt  leave 
them  for  the  poor  and  the  stranger."  And  this:  "  When  a 
man  hath  taken  a  new  wife  he  shall  not  go  out  to  war 
neither  shall  he  be  charged  with  any  business;  but  he  shall 
be  free  at  home  one  year  and  shall  cheer  up  his  wife  whom 
he  hath  taken."  And  even  in  regard  to  war — in  which  cer- 
tainly they  were  fierce  enough — what  a  gleam  of  kindness 
comes  in  in  that  command  that  when  they  were  besieging  a 
city  they  must  not  cut  down  the  fruit  trees  about  it  for 
their  war  purposes,  but  only  trees  that  they  knew  were  not 
for  fruit.  Why,  I  might  go  on  for  an  hour  quoting  these 


62  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

more  merciful  laws  and  showing  you  the  large,  grand 
thoughts  of  duty  that  pervade  that  whole  system  which  the 
Jews  believed  had  been  given  to  them  by  Moses. 

But  there  is  nothing  really  to  fear.  For  the  moment 
many  may  be  led  to  throw  the  Bible  away,  and  to  give  up 
religion  as  the  weak  nonsense  he  so  scornfully  proclaims  it. 
Religion  will  abide  in  the  heart  of  man.  And  the  Bible 
will  stand  because  in  it  we  have  the  accumulated  utterance 
of  religion  in  its  best  beginnings  and  along  its  noblest  line 
of  development. 


THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY. 


THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY. 


WE  need  not  pray  for  Col.  Robert  Ingersoll's  soul,  for  he 
ways  he  has  none;  and  in  this  instance  we  are  bound  to  be- 
lieve him,  as  he  is  judge,  jury  and  witness  in  the  case;  and 
there  may  be  men  without  souls,  as  there  are  some  without 
conscience,  others  without  reason,  and  quite  a  number  with- 
out principle.  The  first  man  of  whom  the  Bible  says  that 
he  prayed,  was  Abraham.  He  prayed  for  Abimelech.  But 
Col.  Ingersoll,  we  suspect,  is  not  smitten  with  that  disease. 
He  prayed  for  the  wicked  people  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
to  which  class  belongs  no  American  citizen,  of  course,  as 
"  Mitchell's  Geography"  substantially  proves.  Jacob  prayed 
when  his  brother  Esau  approached  him  with  an  armed  force; 
and  the  Colonel  has  come  to  us  unarmed,  and  without  any 
force  except  a  few  harmless  agents  of  the  Boston  Lecture 
Bureau,  who  take  the  money,  show  the  show,  and  depart  in 
peace.  Moses  prayed  for  his  sister  Miriam  when  she  was 
leprous,  but  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  no  woman,  and  his  excellent 
exterior  betokens  no  leprosy.  Joshua  p rayed  to  make  the 
sun  and  moon  stand  still,  but  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  .neither  the 
greater  nor  the  lesser  light,  and  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge 
nobody  wants  him  to  stand  still  at  any  place. 

Speaking  of  imagination,  it  reminds  me  that  Col.  Inger- 
soll said  he  could  not  imagine  the  existence  of  a  God.  Im- 
agine God!  Any  professor  of  philosophy  would  faint  if  he 
was  told  that  illogical  expression.  How  can  God  be  im- 


54  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

agined?  Perhaps  one  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  manufactured  goda 
could  be  imagined  in  a  disorderly  imagination,  as  only  phys- 
ical objects  of  nature  or  combinations  thereof  could  be  im- 
agined— nothing  else.  What  kind  of  a  god  would  that  be 
which  could  be  submitted  to  the  imagination  of  a  man  with- 
out a  soul?  It  must  be  the  miniature  or  pocket  edition  of 
an  idol,  made  by  man,  such  as  Col.  Ingersoll  purchases  and 
exhibits  to  amuse  tall  babies.  It  must  be  that  sort  of  far- 
cical gods  which  he  describes  in  his  burlesques.  He  is  not 
the  iirst  quack  who  would  not  take  his  own  medicines, 
although  he  is  certainly  among  reasoners  the  first  who  would 
imagine  Deity,  for  none  tries  to  imagine  that  which  reason 
only  can  grasp;  none  will  permit  himself  to  be  led  astray 
by  imagination  where  pure  reflection  only  can  reach  the 
aim. 

The  perversion  of  ideas  springs  from  a  mistake  about 
Moses.  A  god  or  gods  have  been  fabricated  at  the  expense 
of  Moses,  until  each  little  priest  had  his  own  snug  little  god 
that  could  be  used  as  the  Crusader's  emblem  or  the  license 
of  the  auto-da-fe,  to  massacre  and  glut  in  human  gore,  or 
the  frail  woman's  last  resort  of  love  to  make  honest  men 
out  of  rogues,  pure  souls  out  of  the  dregs  of  hell.  The  god 
or  gods  variously  depicted,  miscellaneously  described,  and 
promiscuously  applied  become  objects  of  imagination,  hence 
also  of  the  farce.  The  mistake  is  that  Moses  was  charged 
with  all  the  follies  of  theological  jugglers  and  sophistical 
bummers.  The  God  whom  Moses  taught  is  emphatically 
the  God  whom  no  man  can  see  and  live, — the  Great  I  Am, 
who  is  the  I,  the  Ego,  the,  Subject  of  the  Universe,  the  law, 
the  life,  the  love  and  the  intellect  of  the  cosmos,  the  Eternal 
Jehovah,  essence  itself,  and  the  absolute  substance,  in  whom 
all  things  are  as  all  objects  of  a  man's  tender  love  are  in  his 
aonl,  of  whom  all  things  came  and  into  whom  all  return. 
This  is  not  a  God  fabricated  by  man,  hence  He  could  not 


THE  JEWISH  RAUBI'S  REPLY,  55 

be  imagined  by  man,  as  no  man  can  imagine  a  being  supe- 
rior to  himself.  This  is  the  God  taught  by  Moses;  the  other 
gods  may  be  subjected  to  farce  and  ribaldry,  while  the  true 
Deity  is  too  sublime  even  for  the  pyrotechnical  displays  of 
Mr.  Ingersoll's  disentangled  humor.  It  is  a  mistake  about 
Moses  which  feeds  his  boiler  to  tweedle  the  rusted  think- 
apparatus  of  twaddlers.  The  God  of  Moses  is  too  great  for 
Mr.  Ingersoll;  he  only  deals  in  gods  which  can  be  imag- 
ined, and  in  speaking  of  mistakes  of  Moses  he  reverently 
passes  by  the  God  of  Moses.  The  man  is  not  as  bad  as  his 
reputation. 

I  maintain  that  Col.  Robert  Ingersoll  is  not  half  as  bad 
as  his  reputation.  The  man  was  persecuted  by  his  country- 
men, was  defeated  in  his  political  aspirations  by  church- 
members,  and  thinks  the  Presbyterians  have  done  it.  lie 
is  a  man  of  prominent  talents,  belonging  to  the  better  class; 
all  on  account  of  the  Presbyterians,  he  was  teased,  perse- 
cuted, and  wounded  in  his  pride,  and  so  he  became  a  public 
lecturer.  But  business  is  business;  if  one  wants  to  make 
money  he  must  know  how.  He  could  imagine  that  people 
go  to  the  circus  to  see  the  clown,  to  the  theater  to  laugh 
over  the  comedian.  People  want  fun  to  be  amused,  alcohol 
to  force  the  blood  to  the  brain,  to  fill  up  the  vacuum.  He 
could  see  that  earnest  men  who  reason  on  principles  would 
not  take  with  the  masses.  Aware  of  his  own  talents  as  a 
humorist  and  an  orator,  of  the  scarcity  of  humorists  in  this 
country,  and  the  plenitude  of  slang,  low  comedy,  and  uncul- 
tivated taste,  he  could  only  choose  the  career  which  he  did 
choose — a  career  of  ribaldry,  to  laugh  over  everything  holy, 
to  sneer  alike  at  human  follies,  frailties,  virtue  and  piety; 
and  as  a  business  man  he  has  chosen  well — he  makes  plenty 
of  money  and  hurts  nobody.  A  moral  effect  he  will  never 
have  upon  anybody,  because  there  is  no  moral  force  in  his 
burlesque.  He  is  no  Thomas  Paine,  Thomas  Jefferson,  no 


56  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Voltaire,  Strauss,  Feuerbach,  or  even  a  Heinrich  Heine, 
because  he  lacks  the  research,  the  erudition,  the  systematical 
learning,  and  the  moral  backbone  of  either  of  them.  He 
will  not  set  Rome  on  fire  in  order  to  sing  from  his  balcony  the 
destruction  of  Troy;  he  lacks  the  fire  and  the  torch.  It  is 
all  pyrotechnical  ribaldry,  which  sweeps  away  many  a  con- 
sumptive superstition  and  laughs  many  a  prejudice  out  of 
existence;  but  truth  takes  care  of  itself.  Let  the  man 
alone;  he  is  better  than  his  reputation. 

You  think,  perhaps,  I  ought  to  be  very  angry,  because 
the  gentleman  spoke  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses,  and  ridiculed 
the  great  lawgiver  of  the  Jews.  Let  me  tell  you  first,  any- 
thing over  which  you  laugh  leaves  no  particular  impression 
behind.  That  which  goes  not  though  the  avenues  of  reason 
or  the  depth  of  the  moral  sentiment  in  a  short  time  proves 
effectless.  Scorn  is  a  terrible  weapon  to  achieve  moment- 
ary success,  but  it  is  worse  than  worthless  after  a  second 
sober  thought  or  a  healthy  action  of  the  feelings.  Then  let 
me  say,  the  theology  of  Moses  is  certainly  beyond  the  reach 
of  Col.  Ingersoll,  for  he  is  no  reasoner;  he  can  spit,  but  he 
could  not  think  with  philosophical  minds.  He  never 
studied  through  or  even  read  any  of  the  philosophical 
systems  of  Germany,  England,  or  France;  nor  has  he  the 
ability  to  do  it.  He  is  no  naturalist  of  any  description,  has 
never  troubled  himself  about  any  specialty  thereof,  and  so 
he  talks  about  matters  and  things  in  general  as  is  the 
American  custom,  what  the  Germans  call  Wurst-pkttosophie, 
good  enough  as  jokes  or  for  beer-house  reasonings.  When 
he  speaks  of  the  infinite  he  becomes  too  ludicrous  for  any- 
thing, especially  for  men  of  thought  to  make  anything  out 
of  it  He  will  not  upset  the  theology  of  Moses. 

The  law  of  Moses  is  also  secured  against  the  Colonel's 
possible  attacks.  He  will  commence  no  trouble  with  his 
Blackstone  or  Hugo  Grotius,  or  the  other  writers  on  law 


THE  JEWISH  RABBFS  REPLY.  57 

who  maintain   that  all  law  rests  upon  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion. 

Thirty-five  hundred  years  of  history,  and  the  common 
consent  of  the  civilized  world  at  this  end  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  are  a  little  too  much  for  any  man  to  upset.  He 
says  he  could  write  a  better  Decalogue  than  Moses  did,  but 
that  is  said  only — he  is  not  going  to  do  it;  he  will  not  even 
add  a  category  of  law  to  the  ten. 

Well,  then,  if  he  is  not  the  man  to  attack  successfully  the 
theology  or  jurisprudence  of  Moses,  I  have  no  cause  to  ob 
ject  to  his  lectures.  He  ridicules  Bible  stories,  but  that 
concerns  literalists  only,  not  us.  If  all  the  stories  of  the 
Pentateuch  be  ridiculed,  denied,  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  it 
does  not  change  an  iota  in  the  jurisprudence  or  theology  of 
Moses".  Let  the  literalists  take  up  that  part;  it  does  not 
concern  us  so  very  much. 

Here,  again,  is  a  point  which  makes  me  feel  bad  and  badly 
disposed  to  the  eloquent  humorist.  Why  does  he  continu- 
ally repeat  that  which  others  have  said  often  before  him; 
why  does  he  not  hit  upon  something  original?  He  re- 
hearses old  rags  in  new  shoddy,  and  that  is  unworthy  of  a 
man  who  has  any  pride  about  him.  He  does  sometimes 
worse  than  that;  he  ignores  his  opponents,  which  no  honest 
man  must  do.  He  speaks  a  long  yarn  about  the  history  of 
creation,  always  assuming  an  air  of  originality,  without 
having  the  honesty  of  mentioning  even  Dr.  J.  W.  Dawson's 
work,  "  The  Origin  of  the  World,"  which  upsets  his  whole 
twaddle.  It  is  dishonest  to  make  people  believe  that  a 
thing  said  is  indisputable,  when  it  has  been  completely 
upset 

He  appeals  to  the  apotheosis  of  labor  to  impeach  Moses, 
because  it  said  in  the  Genesis  that  God  cursed  man.  "  In 
the  sweat  of  thy  brow  shalt  thou  eat  bread;"  and  labor  is  a 
blessing  to  man.  Did  all  Socialists  clap  hands?  If  not, 


88  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

some  must  have  thought  this  is  the  language  of  a  dema- 
gogue, who  is  either  a  hypocrite  or  a  self-deluded  man.  La- 
bor and  hard  labor  are  two  different  things,  and  the  "  sweat 
of  thy  brow  "  po  nts  to  hard  labor,  which  rests  like  a  curse 
upon  the  poor  man,  and  is  the  severest  punishment  imposed 
on  the  criminal  condemned  to  hard  labor. 

He  talks  about  the  creation  of  woman  like  an  ignorant 
man  who  has  not  the  remotest  idea  of  the  difficulties  among 
biologists,  considering  the  differentiation  of  man  and  the 
origin  of  sexes.  So  he  talks  about  the  littleness  of  the  ark 
and  smites  Charles  Darwin  in  the  face,  instead  of  saying 
this  proves  Darwin's  theory  on  the  origin  of  species.  He 
scoffs  at  the  God  who  destroyed  His  own  children  and 
undertakes  to  teach  the  Colonel  of  Peoria  how  lie  should 
educate  his.  It  all  depends  upon  what  kind  of  children  one 
wishes  to  bring  up.  Usually  every  parent  brings  up  his  own 
kind.  God  wanted  them  to  bring  up  God-like  children,  and 
when  they  would  not  do  it,  he  got  them  out  of  the  way  in 
preference  to  destroying  human  freedom  or  perpetuating 
wickedness.  If  it  is  only  to  bring  up  such  children  as  Rob- 
ert Ingersoll,  of  Peoria,  111.,  no  such  stringency  is  necessary. 
Musquashes  grow  spontaneously  in  abundance.  Then  he 
speaks  about  600  pigeons  a  day  for  three  priests,  and  does 
not  know  that  there  were  no  pigeons  in  the  wilderness,  and 
the  Mosaic  sacrificial  polity  was  not  introduced  till  Joshua 
had  taken  the  Land  of  Canaan,  and  then  there  were  more 
priests  than  there  are  to-day  humorists  in  America,  for 
Joshua  gave  them  quite  a  number  of  cities,  and  I  would 
not  be  astonished  if  those  American  humorists  could  eat 
more  pigeons  than  they  can  do  good  in  this  world. 

But  what  is  the  use  to  speak  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses? 
Speak  of  the  mistakes  about  Moses.  Did  Moses  write  th  e 
Genesis?  Says  Col.  Ingersoll,  "I  do  not  know;"  and  he 
does  not  know  a  great  many  other  things.  Did  Moses  wri  te 


THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY.  59 

the  historical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch?  Says  the  Illinois 
Colonel  again,  "I  do  not  know."  If  he  has  written  all  that, 
did  the  translators  and  commentators  which  the  Colonel 
read  represent  correctly  the  ideas  of  Moses?  "  Do  n't  know," 
gays  the  Colonel.  If  those  writers  do  represent  the  matter 
correctly,  have  those  points  which,  the  Colonel  ridicules 
never  been  discussed  and  refuted?  "  Do  n't  know,"  says  the 
Colonel;  and  decent  men  must  not  curse;  still  they  are 
permitted  to  say, "  Why  do  you  talk  of  matters  of  which  you 
know  so  preciously  little?  That  is  all  excusable,  however, 
in  this  case.  The  humorous  and  eloquent  gentleman  is  out 
on  a  lecture  tour,  and  wants  to  succeed.  This  can  be  done 
by  reckless  ribaldry  only.  It  makes  no  difference  whether 
Hell  or  gods,  Devil  or  Moses,  Pope  or  Presbyterian  church 
— anything  that  will  pay  must  be  pressed  into  the  service. 
The  Colonel's  field  is  small;  he  has  no  great  choice  of  sub- 
jects, and  he  must  take  the  first  best  to  ridicule  it  and 
make  it  pay.  He  has  that  particular  talent,  and  could  not 
do  the  same  work  in  another  field.  He  cannot  criticise 
Aristotle  and  Emanuel  Kant  and  make  it  pay,  because  he 
cannot  read  them.  He  cannot  ridicule  Carlyle  or  Stuart 
Mill,  because  he  cannot  understand  them.  So  he  picks  up 
some  small  stories  which  the  children  know,  and  dishes  them 
up  in  his  own  humoristic  way  for  the  amusement  of  big 
babies.  The  man  understands  his  business  to  the  T.  I 
tell  you,  he  is  not  as  bad  as  his  reputation.  I  beg  a  thou- 
sand pardons  of  Col.  Robert  Ingersoll  if  I  have  wronged 
him.  I  did  not  mean  to  make  fun  of  him  any  way. 


[  Pbotngrtpbed  by 


DE.  GIBSON'S  REPLY. 


DR  GIBSON'S  REPLY.' 


UNHAPPILY,  the  attention  of  Bible  students  has  been  al- 
most exclusively  directed  to  certain  difficulties.  These  dif- 
ficulties all  arise,  as  it  seems  to  me,  from  three  sources,  and 
the  Bible  is  not  to  blame  for  any  of  them.  First  source: 
treating  the  passage  as  if  it  were  history,  whereas  it  is  apoc- 
alypse. Second  source:  taking  it  as  intended  to  teach  sci- 
ence, especially  astronomical  and  geological  science.  Third 
source  of  difficulty :  the  mistakes  of  translators.  For  exam- 
ple, the  unfortunate  word  firmament  continually  comes  to 
the  front  as  one  of  the  "  mistakes  of  Moses."  Strange  that 
a  Latin  word  should  be  a  mistake  of  Moses!  Did  Moses 
know  Latin  ?  Did  he  ever  write  the  letters  f,  i,  r,  m,  etc,  1 
Not  only  is  the  word  ''  firmament "  not  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  but  it  does  not  represent  the  Hebrew  word  at  all. 
The  word  firmament  means  something  strong,  solid.  The 
Hebrew  word  for  which  it  is  an  unfortunate  translation, 
signifies  something  that  is  very  thin,  extended,  spread  out; 
just  the  best  word  that  could  be  chosen  to  signify  the  at- 
mosphere. 

Then  there  is  the  word  "whales,"  that  Professor  Huxley 
made  so  merry  over  a  year  ago.  But  the  Hebrew  does  not 
say  whales.  The  Hebrew  word  refers  to  great  sea  monsters, 
and  is  just  the  very  best  word  the  Hebrew  language  affords 
to  describe  such  animals  as  the  plesiosanrus  and  ichthyo- 
saurus and  other  creatures  that  abounded  in  the  time  prob- 

•Portions  of  this  reply  recently  aprmnred  In  the  dally  press  signed  "  CAKDOB:  * 
other  portions  were  selected  by  the  Editor  from  his  new  work,  just  published  by 
Randolph  A  Co.,  New  York,  enmied  "The  Agce  Before  Moses." 


62  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

ably  referred  to  there.  Let  us  only  guard  against  these 
three  sources  of  error,  and  we  shall  not  find  many  diffi- 
culties. If  we  would  only  avoid  the  mistakes  of  Moses' 
critics,  we  would  not  show  our  ignorance  by  talking  about 
the  mistakes  of  Moses. 

We  have  said  that  almost  everybody  knows  about  the 
difficulties,  but  how  few  are  there  comparatively  that  know 
about  the  wonderful  harmonies  ?  So  much  is  said  and  writ- 
ten about  the  difficulties,  that  many  have  the  idea  that  the 
narrative  is  full  of  difficulties — nothing  but  difficulties  in  it 
— nothing  that  agrees  with  science  as  we  know  it  now; 
whereas,  when  we  look  at  it,  we  find  the  correspondencies 
most  wonderful  all  the  way  through.  Let  us  look  at  a  few 
of  them.  And  first,  the  absence  of  dates.  The  fact  is  very 
noteworthy  that  there  is  such  abundance  of  space  left  for  the 
long  periods,  not  till  quite  recently  demanded  by  science. 
And  this  does  not  depend  on  any  theory  of  day-periods;  for 
those  who  still  hold  to  the  literal  days,  find  all  the  room  re- 
quired before  the  first  day  is  mentioned.  Not  six  thousand 
years  ago,  but  "  in  the  beginning."  How  grand  and  how 
true  in  its  vagueness 

Another  negative  characteristic  worth  noticing  here  is  the 
absence  of  details  where  none  are  needed.  For  example, 
there  is  almost  nothing  said  in  detail  about  the  heavens. 
What  is  said  about  the  heavens  in  addition  to  the  bare  fact 
of  creation,  is  only  in  reference  to  the^  earth,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, when  the  sun  and  moon  are  treated  of,  not  as  separate 
worlds,  but  only  in  their  relation  to  this  earth  as  giving 
light  to  it  and  affording  measurements  of  time.  1  here  is 
no  attempt  to  dra^  in  the  spectroscope! 

i 
Ingersoll  Betrays  His  Ignorance. 

A  certain  infidel  lately  seemed  to  think  he  had  /nade  a 
point  against  the  Bible  by  remarking  that  the  autLor  ol'  it 


DR.  GIBSON'S  HE  PLY.  63 

bad  compressed  the  astronomy  of  the  universe  into  five 
words.  Just  think  of  the  ignorance  this  betrays.  It  pro- 
ceeds on  the  assumption  that. the  author  of  this  apocalypse 
intended  to  teach  the  world  the  astronomy  of  the  universe; 
and  then,  of  course,  it  would  have  been  a  very  foolish  thing 
for  him  to  discuss  the  whole  subject  in  live  words.  Whereas, 
in  this  very  reticence  we  have  a  note  of  truth.  If  this  work 
had  been  the  work  of  some  mere  cosmogonist,  some  theo- 
rist as  to  the  origin  of  the  universe,  he  would  have  been  sure 
to  have  given  us  a  great  deal  of  information  about  the  stars. 
But  a  prophet  of  the  Lord  has  nothing  to  do  with  astrono- 
my as  such.  All  that  he  has  to  do  Math  the  stars  is  to  make 
it  clear  that  the  most  distant  orbs  of  light  are  included  in 
the  domain  of  the  Great  Supreme,  and  this  he  can  do  as  well 
in  five  words  as  in  five  thousand;  and  so,  wisely  avoiding 
all  detail,  he  simply  says,  "He  made  the  stars  also."  There 
was  danger  that  men  might  suppose  some  power  resident 
in  these  distant  stars  distinct  from  the  power  that  ruled  the 
earth.  He  would  have  them  to  understand  that  the  same 
God  that  rules  over  this  little  earth,  rules  to  the  uttermost 
bounds  of  the  great  universe.  And  this  great  truth  he  lays 
on  immovable  foundations  by  the  sublimely  simple  words, 
"  He  made  the  stars  also."  But  passing  from  that  which 
is  merely  negative,  see  how  many  positive  harmonies  there 
are. 

Harmony  of  Science  and  Genesis. 

First,  there  is  the  fact  of  a  beginning.  The  old  infidel 
objection  used  to  be  that  "  all  things  have  continued  as  they 
were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation."  Nobody  pre- 
tends to  take  that  position  now  that  science  points  so  clearly 
to  beginnings  of  everything.  You  can  trace  back  man  to 
his  beginning  in  the  geological  cycles.  You  can  trace  back 
mammals  to  their  beginning;  birds,  fishes,  insects  to  their 
beginnings;  vegetation  to  its  beginning;  rocks  to  their 
5 


64  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

beginning.  The  general  fact  of  a  genesis  is  immovably 
established  by  science. 

Secondly,  u  The  heavens  and  the  earth."  Note  the  order 
Though  almost  nothing  is  said  about  the  heavens,  yet  what 
is  said  is  not  at  all  in  conflict  with  what  we  now  know  about 
them.  We  know  now  that  the  earth  is  not  the  center  of 
the  universe.  Look  forward  to  Genesis  iv.  2,  and  you  will 
find  the  transition  to  the  reverse  order — quite  appropriate 
there,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  lecture;  but  here,  where 
the  genesis  of  all  things,  the  origin  of  the  universe,  is  the 
subject,  it  is  not  the  earth  and  the  heavens,  but  "  in  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 

Thirdly,  there  is  the  original  chaos.  "  The  earth  was 
without  form  and  void."  Turn  to  the  early  pages  of  any 
good  modern  scientific  book,  that  attempts  to  set  forth  the 
genesis  of  the  earth  from  a  scientific  standpoint,  and  you 
will  find  just  this  condition  described.  Observe,  too,  in 
passing,  how  carefully  the  statement  is  limited  to  the  earth. 
The  universe  was  not  chaotic  then. 

Fourthly,  the  work  of  creation  is  not  a  simultaneous,  but 
an  extended  one.  If  the  author  had  been  guessing  or 
theorizing,  he  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to  hit  on 
the  idea  of  simultaneous,  than  successive  creation.  But  the 
idea  of  successive  creation  is  now  proved  by  science  to  be 
true. 

Fifthly,  there  is  a  progressive  development,  and  yet  not 
a  continuous  progression  without  any  drawbacks.  There 
are  evenings  and  mornings;  just  what  science  tells  us  of 
the  ages  of  the  past.  Here  it  is  worth  whita  perhaps  to 
notice  the  careful  use  of  the  word  "  created."  An  objec- 
tion has  been  made  to  the  want  of  continuity  in  the  so-called 
orthodox  doctrine  of  creation,  the  orthodox  doctrine  being 
supposed  to  be  that  of  fresh  creation  at  every  point.  Hut 
the  Bible  is  not  responsible  for  many  "  fresh  creations." 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  65 

The  word  "  created  "  is  only  used  three  times  in  the  record. 
First,  as  applied  to  the  original  creation  of  the  universe, 
possibly  in  the  most  embryonic  state.  "  In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  Next,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  introduction  of  life  (v.  2),  and  last,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  creation  of  man  (v.  27).  In  no  other  place  is 
anything  said  about  direct  creation.  '  It  is  rather  making, 
appointing,  ordering,  saying  "  Let  there  be."  "  Let  the 
waters  bring  forth,"  etc.  Now,  is  it  not  a  significant  fact 
that  these  three  points  where,  and  where  alone,  the  idea  of 
absolute  creation  is  introduced,  are  just  the  three  points  at 
which  the  great  apostles  of  continuity  find  it  impossible  to 
make  their  connections?  You  will  not  find  any  one  that  is 
able  to  show  any  other  origin  for  the  spirit  of  man  than  the 
Creator  Himself.  You  cannot  find  any  one  that  is  able  te 
show  any  other  origin  of  animal  life  than  the  Creator  Him- 
self. There  have  been  very  strenuous  efforts  made  a  great 
many  times  to  show  that  the  living  may  originate  from  the 
not-living;  but  all  these  efforts  have  failed.  And  the  origin 
of  matter  is  just  as  mysterious  as  the  origin  of  life.  No 
other  origin  can  be  even  conceived  of  the  primal  matter  of 
the  universe  than  the  fiat  of  the  great  Creator.  Thus  we 
find  the  word  "creation"  used  just  at  the  times  when 
modern  science  tells  us  it  is  most  appropriate. 

Sixthly,  the  progression  is  from  the  lower  to  the  higher. 
An  inventor  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to  guess 
that  man  was  created  first,  and  afterward  the  other  creatures 
subordinate  to  him.  But  the  record  begins  at  the  bottom 
ef  the  scale  and  goes  up,  step  by  step,  to  the  top:  again, 
just  what  geology  tells  us.  All  these  are  great  general 
correspondencies;  but  we  might, 

Seventhly,  go  into  details  and  find  harmonies  even  there, 
all  the  way  through.  Take  the  fact  of  light  appearing  on 
the  first  day.  The  Hebrew  word  for  "  light "  is  wide  enough 


66  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

to  cover  the  associated  phenomena  of  heat  and  electricity, 
and  are  not  these  the  primal  forces  of  the  universe?  Again, 
it  used  to  be  a  standard  difficulty  with  sceptics  that  light 
was  said  to  exist  before  the  sun  was  visible  from  the  earth. 
Science  here  has  come  to  the  rescue,  and  who  doubts  it  now? 
It  is  very  interesting  to  see  a  distinguished  geologist  like 
Dana  using  this  very  fact  that  light  is  said  to  have  existed 
before  the  sun  shone  upon  the  earth  as  a  proof  of  the  divine 
origin  of  this  document,  on  the  ground  that  no  one  would 
have  guessed  what  must  have  seemed  so  unlikely  then.  So 
much  for  the  progress  toward  the  Bible  which  science  has 
made  since  the  day  when  a  sceptical  writer  said  of  the 
Mosaic  narrative,  "  It  would  still  be  correct  enough  in  great 
principles  were  it  not  for  one  individual  oversight  and  one 
unlucky  blunder! " — the  oversight  being  the  solid  firmament 
(whose  oversight?),  and  the  blunder,  light  apart  from  the 
sun  (whose  blunder?). 

I  have  spoken  already  about  the  words  "  created "  and 
"  made,"  in  relation  to  the  discriminating  use  of  them. 
This  word  raqia,  too,  how  admirable  it  is  to  'express  the 
tenuity  of  our  atmosphere,  especially  as  contrasted  with  the 
clumsy  words  used  by  the  enlightened  Greeks  (stereoma) 
the  noble  Romans  (firmamentum),  and  even  by  learned 
Englishmen  of  the  nineteenth  century  (firmament)!  And 
not  to  dwell  on  mere  words,  as  we  well  might,  look  at  the 
general  order  of  creation:  vegetation  before  animal  life, 
birds  and  fishes  before  mammals,  and  all  the  lower  animals 
before  man.  Is  not  that  just  the  order  you  find  in  geology? 
More  particularly,  while  man  is  last  he  is  not  created  on  a 
separate  day.  He  comes  in  on  the  sixth  day  along  with  the 
high«r  animals,  yet  not  in  the  beginning,  but  toward  the 
close  of  the  period.  Again,  just  what  geology  tells  us. 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  91 

The   Harmony  of  Genesis  and   Science,  not  the   Result  of 
Guess  Work,  but  of  Inspiration. 

These  are  only  some  of  the  many  wonderful  harmonies 
between  this  old  revelation  and  modern  science.  I  would 
Like  to  see  the  doctrine  of  chances  applied  to  this  problem, 
to  determine  what  probability  there  would  be  of  a  mere 
guesser  or  inventor  hitting  upon  so  many  things  that  cor- 
respond with  what  modern  science  reveals.  I  don't  believe 
there  would  be  one  chance  in  a  million!  Is  it  not  far 
harder  for  a  sensible  man  to  believe  that  this  wonderful 
apocalypse  is  the  fruit  of  ignorance  and  guess-work,  than 
that  it  is  the  product  of  inspiration?  It  is  simply  absurd  to 
imagine  that  an  ignorant  man  could  have  guessed  so  hap- 
pily. Nay,  more.  Let  any  of  the  scientific  men  of  to-day 
set  themselves  down  to  write  out  a  history  of  creation  in  a 
space  no  larger  than  that  occupied  by  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  and  I  do  not  believe  they  could  improve  on  it  at  all. 
And  if  they  did  succeed  in  producing  anything  that  would 
pass  for  the  present,  in  all  probability  in  ten  years  it  would 
be  out  of  date.  Our  apocalypse  of  creation  is  not  only  bet- 
ter than  could  be  expected  of  an  uninspired  man  in  the 
days  of  the  world's  ignorance,  but  it  is  better  than  Tyndall, 
or  Huxley,  or  Haeckel  could  do  yet.  If  they  think  not,  let 
them  take  a  single  sheet  of  paper  and  try ! 

....  It  is  of  great  importance  to  remember  that  the  sym- 
bolism attaches  to  the  form,  and  not  to  the  substance  of  the 
history.  To  call  this  whole  story  of  the  Fall  a  mere  alle- 
gory, is  to  take  away  from  it  all  historical  reality.  Let  us 
distinguish  carefully  between  the  reality  of  the  history, 
which  is  a  very  important  thing,  and  the  literality  of  it, 
which  is  of  minor  importance.  It  is  very  unfortunate  that 
so  much  time  is  often  spent  upon  the  mere  letter,  regardless 
of  the  warning  of  the  great  apostle:  "The  letter  killeth, 


68  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

but  the  spirit  giveth  life.  This  accounts  for  nine-tenths  of 
the  difficulties  people  have  about  it.  Suppose  a  person, 
seeing  a  cocoanut  for  the  first  time,  and  being  told  it  was 
good  for  food,  should  spend  all  his  time  gnawing  away  at 
the  shell,  and  never  get  at  the  kernel.  No  wonder  of  his 
verdict  should  be,  it  is  not  fit  to  eat.  So  you  will  find  that 
most  of  the  people  who  have  insuperable  difficulties  with 
the  Bible  are  those  who  are  busying  themselves  all  the  time 
about  the  shell  and  never  get  hold  of  the  kernel.  If  they 
could  only  seize  the  kernel  they  would  so  readily  see  the 
beauty  and  enjoy  the  taste,  and  find  the  use  of  it;  and  then, 
perhaps,  they  would  begin  to  see  some  beauty  and  some 
usefulness  in  the  shell  too.  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the 
Spirit  giveth  life." 

A  very  good  illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  fifteenth 
ferse  of  the  third  chapter,  where  we  read  about  "  the  seed 
of  the  woman  bruising  the  head  of  the  serpent."  The  iiter- 
alists  get  nothing  more  out  of  it  than  a  declaration  that  in 
time  to  come  serpents  will  annoy  the  descendants  of  Eve  by 
biting  at  their  heels,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  descendants 
of  Eve  will  destroy  serpents  by  crushing  their  heads!  The 
mere  shell  of  the  thing  manifestly.  The  reality,  as  pictured 
there,  is  of  a  great  conflict  to  go  on  throughout  all  these 
ages  of  development;  a  great  conflict  between  the  forces  of 
good  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  forces  of  evil  on  the  other. 
Of  this  conflict  the  issue  is  not  doubtful.  There  is  to  be 
serious  trouble  all  the  while  from  the  force?  of  evil,  but  in 
the  end  these  forces  will  be  crushed.  There  is  One  coming 
— a  descendant  of  this  same  woman,  called  here  "  the  seed 
of  the  woman  " — who  will  at  last  "  bruise  the  head  of  the 
serpent,"  and  gain  the  victory,  and  bring  in  that  glorious 
era  when  sin  and  suffering  and  pain  and  death  shall  have 
all  rolled  away  into  the  past.  There  is  a  great  deal  more 
than  this  in  that  wonderful  verse — more  than  we  would 


Uti.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  69 

have  time  to  tell  though  we  spent  a  whole  hour  on  it  We 
only  refer  to  it  now  as  a'n  illustration. 

And  now,  what  matters  it  whether  you  take  the  "ser- 
pent "  that  tempted  Eve  to  be  a  real  and  literal  serpent,  or 
the  mere  (phenomenal)  form  of  a  serpent  assumed  by  the 
Spirit  of  Evil  for  the  purpose  ?  or  even  whether  the  serpent 
form  is  connected  with  the  old  style  of  pictorial  representa- 
tion ?  All  that  is  minor  and  subordinate.  There  is  no  use 
of  wasting  time  on  it.  All  we  want  to  be  sure  of  is  the 
truth,  that  there  was  a  tempter,  an  evil  spirit,  that  in  a 
seductive  form  tempted  our  first  parents  and  they  fell.  Let 
us  by  all  means  ^beware  of  allowing  our  time  to  be  frittered 
away  by  mere  trivial  questions  of  the  letter,  instead  of  mak- 
ing it  our  great  aim  to  see  and  to  seize  the  great  spiritual 
truths  set  forth  in  this  old  and  simple  record. 

There  are  many  who  represent  this  book  of  the  Genera- 
tions as  a  second  edition  of  the  Genesis,  or  separate  account 
of  the  creation ;  and  of  course  they  find  difficulty  in  compar- 
ing the  two.  All  their  difficulty,  as  we  shall  see,  comes  from 
their  not  understanding  the  passage  as  a  whole,  their  not 
perceiving  what  it  was  intended  to  teach.  It  will  help  us  to 
meet  this  difficulty  if  we  follow  the  same  order  of  ideas  as  in 
the  exposition  of  Genesis  i.,  viz.:  God,  Nature,  Man.  In  all 
we  shall  find  marked  differences.  But  these  differences,  in- 
stead of  presenting  any  difficulty,  will  have  their  reason 
made  abundantly  manifest. 

God. 

First,  then,  there  is  a  different  name  for  God  introduced 
here.  All  through  the  Genesis  it  has  been  "God  said," 
"  God  made,"  "  God  created."  Now  it  is  invariably,  "  Je- 
hovah God  "  (LORD  God  in  our  version).  And  this  is  the 
only  continuous  passage  in  the  Bible  where  the  combination 
is  used.  How  is  this  explained?  Very  easily.  In  the 


70  MISTAKES  OF  INGEKSOLL. 

apocalypse  of  the  Genesis,  God  makes  Himself  known  sim- 
ply as  Creator.  Sin  has  not  yet  entered,  and  so  the  idea  of 
salvation  has  no  place.  In  this  passage  sin  is  coming  in, 
and  along  with  it  the  promise  of  salvation.  Now  the  name 
Jehovah  is  always  connected  with  the  idea  of  salvation.  It 
is  the  covenant  name.  It  is  the  name  which  indicates 
God's  special  relation  to  His  people,  as  their  Saviour  and 
Redeemer.  This  name  is  introduced  now,  because  God  is 
about  to  make  Himself  known  in  anew  character.  -He  ap- 
peared in  Genesis  simply  as  Creator.  He  appears  now  in 
the  book  of  the  Generations  as  Redeemer;  and  so  we  get 
the  name  Jehovah  in  place  of  the  name  God.  But  lest  any 
one  should  suppose  from  the  change  of  name  that  there  is 
any  change  in  the  person;  lest  any  one  suppose  that  He 
who  is  to  redeem  us  from  sin  and  death,  is  a  different  being 
from  Him  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  the  two 
names  are  now  combined — Jehovah  God.  The  combination 
is  retained  throughout  the  entire  narrative  of  the  Fall  to 
make  the  identification  sure.  Thereafter  either  name  is 
used  by  itself  without  danger  of  error. 

Nature. 

Look  next  at  the  way  in  which  Nature  is  spoken  of  here. 
When  you  look  at  it  aright,  you  find  there  is  no  repetition. 
Nature  in  the  Genesis  is  universal  nature.  God  created  all 
things.  But  here,  nature  comes  in,  as  it  has  to  do  immedi- 
ately with  Adam.  Now  see  the  effect  of  this.  It  at  once 
removes  difficulties,  which  many  speak  of  as  of  great  mag- 
nitude. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  the  whole  earth  that  is  now 
spoken  of,  but  a  very  limited  district.  Our  attention  is 
narrowed  down  to  Eden,  and  the  environs  of  Eden,  a  limi- 
ted district  in  a  particular  part  of  the  earth.  Hence  the 
difficulty  about  there  not  being  rain  in  the  district  ("  earth  ") 


•    DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  71 

disappears.  Let  me  here  remind  you  once  or  all  that  the 
Hebrew  word  for  earth  and  for  land  or  district  is  the  same. 
See  Gen.  xii.,  1.,  where  the  word  is  twice  used,  translated 
"country"  and  "land." 

Again,  it  is  not  the  vegetable  kingdom  as  a  whole  that  is 
referred  to  in  the  fifth  verse,  but  only  the  agricultural  and 
horticultural  products.  The  words  "plant,"  "field"  and 
"grew"  (v.  5)  are  new  words,  not  found  in  the  creation 
record.*  In  Gen.  i.  the  vegetable  kingdom  as  a  whole  was 
spoken  of.  Now,  it  is  simply  the  cereals  and  garden  herbs, 
and  things  of  that  sort;  and  here  instead  of  coming  into  col- 
lision with  the  previous  narrative,  we  have  something  that 
corresponds  with  what  botanists  tell  us,  that  field  and  gar- 
den products  are  sharply  distinguished  in  the  history  of 
nature  from  the  old  flora  of  the  geological  epochs. 

In  the  same  way  it  is  not  the  whole  animal  kingdom  that 
is  referred  to  in  verse  nineteen,  but  only  the  domestic  ani- 
mals, thdse  with  which  man  was  to  be  especially  associated, 
and  to  which  he  was  very  much  more  intimately  related 
than  to  the  wild  beasts  of  the  field.  It  may  be  easy  to 
make  this  narrative  look  ridiculous,  by  bringing  the  wild 
beasts  in  array  before  Adam,  as  if  any  companionship  with 
them  were  conceivable.  But  when  we  bear  in  mind  that 
reference  is  made  here  to  the  domestic  animals,  there  is 
nothing  at  all  inappropriate  in  noticing  that  while  there  is  a 
certain  degree  of  companionship  possible  between  man  and 
some  of  those  animals,  as  the  horse  and  dog,  yet  none  of 
these  was  the  companion  he  needed. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  nature  is  the  great  theme. 
We  are  carried  over  universal  nature,  and  the  great  truth  is 
there  set  forth,  that  God  has  created  all  things.  In  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  Genesis,  man  is  the  great  theme,  and  conse- 


*  The  correct  translation  of  the  fifth  verse  is:     "  Now  no  plant  of  the 
field  was  yet  in  the  laud,  and  no  herb  of  the  field  was  growing." 


72  MISTAKES  OF  INGEXSOLL. 

quently  nature  is  treated  of  only  as  it  circles  around  him, 
and  is  related  to  him.  This  sufficiently  accounts  tor  the 
difference  between  the  two. 

Man. 

Passing  now  from  nature  to  Man,  we  find  again  a  marked 
difference.  In  Gen.  i.  we  are  told,  "  God  created  man  in 
His  own  image;  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him." 
And  here:  "The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  du^st  of  the 
ground."  (ii.  7.)  Some  people  tell  as  there  is  a  contra- 
diction here.  la  there  any  contradiction,  let  me  ask?  Are 
not  both  of  them  true?  Is  there  not  something  that  tells 
you  that  there  is  more  than  dust  in  your  composition?  Is 
there  not  something  in  you  that  tells  you,  you  are  related 
to  God  the  Creator?  When  you  hear  the  statement  that 
"  God  made  man  in  His  own  image,  is  there  not  a  response 
awakened  in  you — something  in  you  that  rises  up  and  says, 
It  is  true?  On  the  other  hand,  we  know  that  man's  body 
is  formed  of  the  dust  of  the  earth.  We  find  it  to  be  true 
in  a  more  literal  sense  'than  was  formerly  supposed,  now 
that  chemistry  discloses  the  fact  that  the  same  elements 
enter  into  the  composition  of  man's  body,  as  are  found  by 
analysis  in  the  "dust  of  the  ground." 

And  not  only  are  both  these  statements  true,  but  each  is 
appropriate  in  its  place.  In  the  first  account,  when  man's 
place  in  universal  nature  was  to  be  set  forth — man  as  he 
issued  from  his  Maker's  hand — was  it  not  appropriate  that 
his  higher  nature  should  occupy  the  foreground?  His  lower 
relations  are  not  entirely  out  of  sight  even  there,  for  he  is 
introduced  along  with  a  whole  group  of  animals  created  on 
the  sixth  day.  But  while  his  connection  with  them  is  sug- 
gested, that  to  which  emphasis  is  given  in  the  Genesis  is 
his  relation  to  his  Maker.  But  now  that  we  are  going  to 
hear  about  his  fall,  about  his  shame  and  degradation,  is  it 


DR.  GIBSON'S  liEPLY.  78 

not  appropriate  that  the  lower  rather  than  the  higher  part 
of  his  nature  should  be  brought  into  the  foreground,  inas- 
much as  it  is  there  that  the  danger  lies?  It  was  to  that  part 
of  his  nature  that  the  temptation  was  addressed ;  and  so  we 
read  here,  "  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground." 
Yet  here,  too,  there  is  a  hint  of  his  higher  nature,  for  it  is 
added,  "  He  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life," 
or  as  we  have  it  in  another  passage,  "  The  inspiration  of  the 
Almighty  gave  him  understanding." 

In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to  notice  the  use  of 
the  words  "created"  and  "formed."  "  God  created  man 
in  His  own  image."  So  far  as  man's  spiritual  and  immor- 
tal nature  was  concerned  it  was  a  new  creation.  On  the 
other  hand,  "God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground."  We  are  not  told  He  created  man's  body  out  of 
nothing.  We  are  told,  and  the  sciences  of  to-day  confirm 
it,  that  it  was  formed  out  of  existing  materials. 

Woman. 

Then,  in  relation  to  Woman,  there  is  the  same  appropri- 
ateness in  the  two  narratives.  In  the  former  her  relations 
to  God  are  prominent:  "God  created  man  in  His  own  im- 
age. In  the  image  of  God  created  He  him;  male  and  fe- 
male created  He  them  " — man  in  His  image;  woman  in  His 
image.  In  the  latter,  it  is  not  the  relation  of  woman  to 
her  Maker  that  is  brought  forward,  but  the  relation  of  wo- 
man to  her  husband.  Hence  the  specific  reference  to  her 
organic  connection  with  her  husband. 

Here,  again,  it  is  very  easy  for  one  that  deals  in  literali- 
ties  to  raise  difficulties,  forgetting  that  there  is  no  intention 
here  to  detail  scientifically  the  process  of  woman's  forma- 
tion,but  siim'U  n>  indicate  that  she  is  organically  connected 
with  her  1)  1 1  —  n- j.  It  is  here  proper  to  remark  that  the  ren- 
dering "  rib "  is  probably  too  specific.  The  word  is  more 


74  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

frequently  used  in  the  general  sense  of  "side."  As  an  ev- 
idence that  there  is  no  intention  to  give  here  any  physio- 
logical information  as  to  the  origin  of  woman,  we  may  refer 
to  the  words  of  Adam:  "This  is  now  bone  of  my  bone  and 
flesh  of  my  flesh.  She  shall  be  called  Woman,  because  she 
was  taken  out  of  man."  And  now,  is  there  anything  irra- 
tional in  the  idea  that  woman  should  be  formed  out  of  man? 
Is  there  anything  more  mysterious  or  inconceivable  in  the 
formation  of  woman  out  of  man,  than  in  the  original  form- 
ation of  man  out  of  dust?  Let  us  conceive  of  our  origin 
in  any.  way  we  choose,  it  is  full  of  mystery.  Though  there 
may  be  mystery  connected  with  what  is  said  in  the  Bible, 
there  will  be  just  as  much  mystery  connected  with  any  other 
account  you  try  to  give  of  it.  Matthew  Henry,  in  his 
quaint  and  half-humorous  way,  really  gets  nearer  to  the 
true  spirit  of  the  narrative  than  any  physiological  inter- 
preter can,  when  he  makes  the  remark  that  some  of  you 
may  be  familiar  with,  u  that  woman  was  taken  out  of  man, 
not  out  of  his  head  to  top  him,  nor  out  of  his  feet  to  be 
trampled  underfoot;  but  out  of  his  side  to  be  equal  to  him, 
under  his  arm  to  be  protected,  and  near  his  heart  to  be 
beloved."  Another  remark  of  his  is  worth  quoting.  Re- 
ferring to  the  fact  of  Adam's  being  first  formed  and  then 
Eve,  and  the  claim  of  priority  and  consequent  superiority, 
as  made  on  his  behalf  by  the  apostle  Paul,  he  says:  "If 
man  is  the  head,  she  is  the  crown — a  crown  to  her  husband, 
the  crown  of  the  visible  creation.  The  man  was  dust  re- 
fined, but  the  woman  was  dust  double-reflned — one  remove 
further  from  the  earth." 

But,  Matthew. Henry  apart,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  this 
old  Bible  narrative,  while  it  has  not  done  that  which  it  was 
never  intended  to  do,  while  it  has  given  no  scientific  expla- 
nation of  either  man's  origin  or  woman's  origin,  has  never- 
theless accompl lulled  its  great  object.  It  has  given  woman 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  75 

her  trne  place  in  the  world.  It  is  only  in  Bible  lands  that 
woman  has  her  true  place;  and  it  is  only  there  that  marriage 
has  its  proper  sacredness.  Here  as  everywhere  else,  we  see 
the  practical  power  of  the  Bible.  It  was  not  written  to 
satisfy  curiosity,  but  to  save  and  to  bless;  and  most  salutary 
and  most  blessed  has  been  the  influence  of  these  earliest 
words  about  woman,  setting  forth  her  true  relation  to  man 
and  to  God,  to  her  earthly  husband  and  her  heavenly  Father. 

Mistakes   Respecting   Labor    and   Death,    Corrected. 

.  .  .  The  Bible  has  been  charged  with  representi  ng  labor 
as  a  curse.  The  charge  is  not  true.  On  the  contrary,  we  are 
told  that  Adam  was  appointed  in  Eden  to  dress  the  garden 
and  keep  it.  The  law  of  labor  came  in  among  the  blessings 
of  Eden,  along  with  the  law  of  obedience  and  the  marriage 
law.  It  is  a  slander  on  the  Bible  to  say  that  it  represents 
labor  as  a  curse.  It  is  not  the  labor  that  is  the  curse.  It  is 
the  thorns  and  the  thistles.  It  is  the  hardness  of  the  labor. 
"  In  the  sweat  of  thy  brow  thou  shalt  eat  bread."  Labor 
would  have  been  easy  and  pleasant  otherwise. 

Then  in  regard  to  death.  There  are  those  who  represent 
the  Bible  as  if  it  taught  that  death  was  unknown  in  the 
world  until  after  the  Fall.  And  then  they  point  us  to  the 
reign  of  death  throughout  the  epochs  of  geology  as  contra- 
dicting the  Bible.  Now,  the  Bible  teaches  nothing  of  the 
kind.  On  the  contrary,  there  seems  rather  to  be  a  suggestion 
that  death  was  in  existence  among  the  lower  animals  all  the 
way  through.  Not  to  speak  of  the  probability  that  one  of 
the  divisions  of  animals,  mentioned  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  corresponds  with  the  carnivora,  is  there  not  some- 
thing in  the  way  the  subject  of  death  is  introduced,  which 
rather  suggests  the  idea  that  it  was  already  known?  It  was 
a  new  thing  to  Adam.  It  was  not  a  new  thing  to  animal 
life.  Man  had  been  created  with  relations  to  mortality 


76  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

below  him,  but  with  relations  also  to  immortality  above 
him.  Had  he  not  fallen,  his  immortal  nature  would  have 
ruled  his  destiny;  but  now  that  he  has  separated  himself 
from  God  by  his  sin,  his  lower  relations,  his  mortal  relations, 
must  rule  his  destiny.  Instead  of  having  as  his  destiny  the 
prospect  of  being  associated  with  God  in  a  happy  immor- 
tality, he  is  degraded  from  that  position,  and  is  henceforth 
associated  with  the  animals  in  their  mortality.  We  are  told 
that  "  death  passed  upon  all  men,  because  all  have  sinned." 
But  you  do  not  find  a  passage  in  the  Bible  asserting  that 
death  passed  upon  the  animals  because  of  man's  sin. 

The    Deluge   and   Its    Difficulties  —  Not   Universal    -   Ararat 

Originally  a  District  (Alas !   Ingersoll  Calls  it  a  High 

Mountain) — Other  Deluges. 

.  ..  .  We  must  here  touch  a  little  on  the  difficulties  con- 
nected with  the  story  of  the  flood.  These  difficulties  are 
almost  all  founded  upon  the  idea  that  the  deluge  was  univer- 
sal; that  it  covered  the  highest  tops  of  the  Himalayas  in 
India,  the  Rocky  Mountains  here,  and  all  the  mountains  over 
all  the  earth.  It  is  but  reasonable,  then,  to  ask  if  there  is 
good  reason  for  insisting  that  it  was  universal? 

I  know  of  only  three  strong  reasons  that  are  given  for  this 
position.  The  first  is  the  use  of  the  term  "  earth  "  continu- 
ally throughout  the  narrative,  which  only  proves  that  those 
who  translated  the  Bible  into  English,  believed  the  flood  to 
have  been  universal.  As  we  have  had  occasion  already  to 
prove,  the  word  "  earth  "  in  Hebrew  means  just  as  readily  a 
limited  district.  Why  do  not  those  who  insist  so  strongly 
on  the  wide  signification  of  "  earth  "  here,  not  insist  upon 
the  same  interpretation  in  such  a  passage  as  Genesis,  xii.  1. 
and  make  it  an  article  of  faith  that  Abraham  left  the  world 
altogether  and  went  to  another,  when  he  left  Ur  of  the 
Ohaldees  and  went  to  Canaan?  The  second  argument  for 


Uti.  f.'/USON'S  RKl'LT.  TJ 

universality  is  found  ill  universal  expressions,  the  (strongest 
of  which  is  Gen.  vii.  19:  "And  the  waters  prevailed  ex- 
ceedingly upon  the  earth,  and  all  the  high  hills  that  were 
under  the  whole  heaven  were  covered."  Now  remember 
that  this  is  the  account  of  an  eye-witness,  vividly  describing 
just  what  he  saw,  water  on  every  side,  water  all  around, 
nothing  but  water — even  the  mountains  to  the  farthest  verge 
of  the  horizon  covered  over  with  water.  When,  in  the  book 
of  Job,  we  read  of  the  lightning  flashing  over  the  whole 
heaven,  the  meaning  surely  can  not  be  that  a  lightning  flash 
starts  at  a  certain  degree  of  latitude  and  longitude,  and 
makes  a  journey  right  round  the  world  to  the  point  where 
it  started.  "  The  whole  heavens  "  is  evidently  bounded  by 
the  horizon.  The  third  reason  which  has  led  people  to  sup- 
pose the  whole  earth  -was  covered  with  water,  is  found  in 
the  tradition  that  the  ark  rested  on  Mount  Ararat.  The 
tradition,  we  say,  for  that  is  all  the  authority  there  is  for  the 
idea.  In  Gen.  vii.  4,  we  are  told  that  the  ark  rested  on  the 
mountains  or  highlands  of  "  Ararat."  The  word  "  Ararat " 
only  occurs  other  two  times  in  the  Bible,  and  in  neither 
place  does  it  refer  to  what  was  only  long  afterward  called 
Mt.  Ararat.  In  Old  Testament  times  Ararat  was  not  a 
mountain  at  all,  but  a  district,  on  some  of  the  highlands  of 
which  the  ark  rested.  A  moment's  thought  will  show  that 
it  could  not  be  on  the  top  of  Ararat.  It  would  require  one 
of  the  hardiest  mountaineers  to  perform  such  a  feat  as  the 
climbing  of  Ararat.  It  would  be  the  most  inconvenient 
place  you  could  think  of  for  the  ark  to  rest  on.  When  you 
look  fairly  at  these  three  arguments  that  are  urged  in  sup- 
port of  a  universal  deluge,  you  will  find  that  none  of  them 
really  demand  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  things  that  seem  to  point 
the  other  way.  In  the  eleventh  verse  of  the  seventh  chap- 
ter we  are  told  that  "  in  the  second  month,  the  seventeenth 


78  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

day  of  the  month,  were  all  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep 
broken  up,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened.* 
There  is  no  indication  there  of  the  sudden  creation  of  such 
a  body  of  water  as  would  cover  the  earth  to  the  depth  of 
30,000  feet  above  the  old  sea-level.  The  causes  that  are  as- 
signed are  just  such  as  could  be  most  readily  and  naturally 
used.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  notice  here  in  passing,  an 
attempt  which  has  been  made  recently  to  cast  ridicule  upon 
the  story  of  the  flood,  by  representing  the  Bible  as  if  it 
attributed  the  deluge  to  nothing  else  than  a  long,  heavy 
rain,  whereas  the  first  importance  is  given  to  an  entirely 
different  cause:  "the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  bro- 
ken up."  That  is  just  what  would  appear  to  one  who  was 
describing  such  a  scene  as  we  imagine  this  to  be.  Suppose 
there  had  been  some  great  submergence  of  the  land  there, 
as  has  taken  place  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  There  would 
be  a  rushing  up  of  water  from  below,  from  "  the  fountains 
of  the  great  deep." 

Again,  in  the  first  verse  of  the  eighth  chapter,  natural 
agency  is  made  use  of:  "  God  made  a  wind  to  pass  over  the 
earth,  and  the  waters  assuaged."  There  is  no  reason  why 
we  should  suppose  a  greater  miracle  performed  than  was 
necessary.  Still  further;  turn  to  the  tenth  verse  of  the  ninth 
chapter,  where  God  says:  "I  establish  my  covenant  with 
you,  and  with  every  living  creature  that  is  with  you;  from 
all  that  go  out  of  the  ark,  to  every  beast  of  the  earth." 
What  were  those  beasts  of  the  earth  thus  distinguished  from 
those  going  out  of  the  ark?  Probably  they  were  those  that 
came  from  the  area  of  land  not  covered  by  the  flood. 

Then  again,  attention  is  called  to  the  purpose  of  the  flood, 
which  was  simply  to  destroy  the  race  of  men,  and  it  is  not 
to  be  supposed  they  had  traveled  a  great  distance  by  this 
time  from  their  original  place  of  abode.  The  extent  of  the 
flood  need  not  have  been  any  greater  than  was  necessary  to 
submerge  that  area. 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  79 

Further,  when  we  take  this  view,  not  only  do  geological 
and  other  difficulties  disappear,  but  there  is  decided  confir- 
mation from  modern  scientific  research.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence in  geology  that  there  was  in  any 'period  of  the  earth's 
history,  a  flood  great  enough  to  overtop  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, but  there  are  evidences  of  floods  as  great  as  this  one 
must  have  been,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  race.  I 
do  not  know  how  it  is  in  the  immediate  region  where  the 
flood  is  supposed  to  have  been.  I  do  not  know  whether 
geologists  have  explored  it  sufficiently;  but  this  is  certain, 
that  there  are  evidences  of  similar  floods  in  other  parts  of 
the  world.  Some  of  our  own  geologists  have  discovered 
evidences  of  them  in  this  very  neighborhood.  You  have  not 
to  go  very  far  from  Chicago  to  find  such  traces  of  sudden, 
powerful,  and  transient  diluvial  action.  Then,  finally,  this 
view  of  the  deluge  removes,  of  course,  all  difficulty  about 
the  number  of  animals  in  the  ark,  because  all  that  was 
necessary  was,  that  the  species  more  nearly  connected  with 
man,  those  found  in  the  region  that  was  submerged,  should 
be  represented  in  the  ark. 

But  after  all,  the  question  of  extent  is  of  quite  minor 
importance  so  long  as  it  is  conceded  that  it  was  universal  in 
the  sense  of  destroying  all  but  the  family  of  Noah.  The 
reality  of  the  judgment  is  the  great  thing,  and  of  this  we  have 
abundant  confirmation  from  tradition.  We  find  legends  of 
a  flood  everywhere.  We  find  them  among  the  Semitic  and 
Aryan  and  Turanian  races.  We  find  them  east  and  west, 
and  north  and  south;  in  savage  nations  and  civilized  nations; 
on  continents  and  in  islands;  in  the  old  world  and  in  the 
new.  And  if  Egypt  is  a  solitary  exception,  which  is  very 
doubtful,  but  if  it  is,  the  exception  is  accounted  for  by  the 
simple  fact  that  in  that  country  they  have  floods  every  year. 

Here  again,  as  in  the  traditions  of  the  Fall,  there  is 
difference  enough  to  show  which  is  the  original  and  true. 


80  MISTAKES  OF  ]^'^RSOLL. 

Other  traditions  of  the  flood  are  polytheistic,  whereaa  here 
we  have  the  one  living  and,  true  God.  Those  are  full  of 
mythological  elements,  whereas  here  is  a  plain  narrative, 
with  the  impressive  scene  vividly,  but  quite  simply,  depicted. 
In  heathen  traditions,  too,  you  find  many  grotesque  items 
and  exaggerations,  as  for  instance,  when  the  ark  is  described 
as  three- fourths  of  a  mile  long,  and  drops  of  rain  the  size 
of  a  bull's  head;  and,  generally  speaking,  a  conspicuous  ab- 
sence of  that  moral  purpose  which  is  so  impressive  and  all- 
pervading  in  the  narrative  before  us. 

Faith   In    Jesus  Christ   the   Essential  Factor. 

.  .  .  There  are  those  in  our  day  who  find  a  stumbling- 
block  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  Christian  life,  in  the  fancy, 
that  what  is  required  of  them  in  order  to  salvation,  is  the  cred- 
iting of  all  the  details  of  a  long  history  extending  from  the 
first  man  to  the  last  man,  from  Adam  to  the  consummation 
of  all  things;  and  long  accustomed  to  that  sceptical  attitude 
of  mind  which  questions  all  things,  they  think  it  would 
take  them  a  life-time  (as  indeed  it  would)  to  verify  every 
statement  that  is  made  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  and 
clear  them  from  all  possible  objections;  and  so  they  do  not 
venture  at  all.  But  remember,  it  is  never  said:  "  Believe 
everything  that  is  in  the  Bible  and  you  will  be  saved."  Ah, 
there  have  been  many  who  believed  everything  in  the  Bible, 
who  never  thought  of  questioning  a  sentence  in  it,  who  will 
find  themselves  none  the  better  for  their  easy  acquiescence 
in  the  statements  of  a  book  which  they  had  been  taught  to 
accept  as  inspired.  There  is  no  such  word  written  as, 
"  Relieve  the  Bible  and  you  will  be  saved."  No.  It  ^s 
il  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved."  Do  not  trouble  yourselves  in  the  first  instance  about 
questions  connected  with  the  book  of  Genesis,  or  difficulties 
suggested  by  the  book  of  Revelation.  Let  the  wars  of  the 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  81 

Jews  alone  in  the  meantime,  and  dismiss  Jonah  from  your 
mind.  Look  to  Jesus;  get  acquainted  with  Him;  listen  to 
His  word;  believe  in  Him;  trust  Him;  obey  Him.  That 
is  all  that  is  asked  of  you  in  the  first  instance.  After  you 
have  believed  on  Christ  and  taken  Him  as  your  Saviour 
your  Master,  your  Model,  you  will  not  be  slow  to  find  out 
that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine  and  for  reproof,  and  for  correction, 
and  for  instruction  in  righteousness."  You  may  never 
have  all  your  difficulties  solved,  or  all  your  objections  met; 
but  though  difficulties  may  still  remain,  and  interrogation 
points  be  scattered  here  and  there  over  the  wide  Bible-field, 
you  will  be  sure  of  your  foundation ;  you  will  feel  that  your 
feet  are  planted  on  the  "  Rock  of  Ages,"  even  on  Him  of 
whom  God,  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  said:. 
"  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a  stone,  a  tried 
stone,  a  precious  corner-stone,  a  sure  foundation:  he  that 
believeth  shall  not  make  haste." 


Candor  v.    Injustice — Dr.    Gibson's   Pointed    Summary. 

The  prevailing  feeling  among  intelligent  readers  of  the 
Bible  in  reference  to  the  profane  and  coarse  assaults  made 
on  it  by  Mr.  Robert  Ingersoll,  is  that  few  people  are  so 
ignorant  as  to  be  imposed  upon  by  his  vulgar  witticisms. 
But,  inasmuch  as  there  are  not  a  few  who  accept  without 
inquiry  his  account  of  what  is  in  the  Bible,  it  may  be  well 
to  give  a  few  illustrations  of  his  unscrupulousness  in  put- 
ting "mistakes"  into  the  Bible  which  he  either  knows  or 
ought  to  know,  are  not  there. 

He^  asserts  positively  that  Moses  must  have  understood 
by  firmament  something  solid,  though  every  one  who  has 
studied  the  subject  knows,  and  the  fact  has  been  published 
again  and  again,  that  the  Hebrew  word  means  something 


82  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

exceedingly  attenuated,  being  the  very  best  word  in  the 
language  to  designate  the  atmosphere;  while  the  mistake 
found  in  the  English  word  "firmament,"  is  due  to  the  sci- 
ence of  Alexandria,  where  in  the  third  century  before 
Christ,  the  "  expanse  "  of  Moses  was  translated  "  stereoma" 
(firmament)  to  suit  the  advanced  astronomy  of  the  time. 

When,  in  speaking  of  the  vegetation  of  the  third  day,  he 
says,  "  Not  a  blade  of  grass  had  even  been  touched  by  a 
single  gleam  of  light,"  is  he  dealing  fairly  with  a  narrative 
that  makes  light  its  first  creation? 

When  he  accuses  Moses  of  compressing  the  astronomy 
of  the  universe  into  five  words,  is  he  dealing  fairly  with  a 
narrative  that  does  not  profess  to  give  any  astronomy  at 
all,  but,  after  a  general  reference  to  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
as  created  in  the  beginning,  restricts  itself  to  the  earth  and 
its  "environment?"  Any  intelligent  person  can  see  that 
this  is  the  reason  why  sun,  moon  and  stars  are  referred  to 
only  in  their  relations  to  the  earth. 

When  he  represents  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Gen- 
esis as  a  varying  repetition  of  the  same  story,  is  it  fair  to 
withhold  all  reference  to  the  different  purport  and  object  of 
the  two  narratives,  which  fully  and  satisfactorily  explains 
the  variation? 

Is  it  fair  to  speak  of  the  deluge  to  represent  it  as  ascribed 
to  nothing  but  rain,  when  the  Bible  expressly  says,  "All 
the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up,"  evidently 
pointing  to  such  a  subsidence  of  the  land  as  is  familiar  to 
any  one  acquainted  with  geology. 

Is  it  fair  to  make  the  Bible  responsible  for  the  Armenian 
tradition  that  the  ark  rested  on  the  top  of  Mount  Ararat, 
17,000  feet  high,  when  the  Bible  nowhere,  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation,  makes  any  such  statement?  The  district  of 
Ararat  on  the  mountains  or  highlands  of  which  the  ark 
rested  is  not  the  "  A<rri-Da<rh"  to  which  the  name  Ararat 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  83 

has  in  modern  times  been  given;  and  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
ignorant  mistake  about  it  is  ot  the  same  kind  as  that  of  the 
bumpkin  who  should  inquire  for  the  Coliseum  in  Rome,  N. 
Y.,  or  seek  the  tomb  of  Leonidas  in  Sparta,  Wisconsin. 

It  will  be  at  once  seen  that  with  this  childlike  ignorance 
is  connected  the  Ingersoll  nonsense  that  the  water  was  five 
and  a  half  miles  deep.  So  says  the  ignorant  critic,  while 
the  simple  and  reasonable  statement  of  the  Bible  is: 
"Fifteen  cubits  upwards  did  the  water  prevail."  As  for  the 
submersion  of  even  the  hills  to  the  utmost  verge  of  the 
horizon,  the  subsidence  of  the  land  was  quite  sufficient  to 
accomplish  it  without  resorting  to  the  supposition  of  any 
unreasonable  quantity  of  water. 

Is  it  fair,  when  Mr.  Ingersoll  wishes  to  render  ridiculous 
the  rate  of  increase  among  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  to  rep- 
resent the  length  of  their  stay  there  as  215  years,  when 
Moses  says  (Exodus.,  xn.,  40):  "  Now  the  sojourning  of  the 
children  of  Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  430  years." 
The  only  other  place  in  the  Pentateuch  where  the  length  of 
their  stay  is  referred  to  is  in  the  prediction  concerning  it  in 
Genesis  xv.,  where  it  is  put  in  round  numbers  at  400 
years.  To  do  Mr.  Ingersoll  justice,  it  is  admitted  that 
certain  theologians,  on  the  strength  of  one  or  two  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  and  some  genealogical  difficulties, 
have  favored  shortening  the  period,  but  the  subject  was  not 
the  mistakes  of  Moses,  but  of  theologians;  and  again  we 
ask,  Was  it  fair,  without  a  word  of  apology  or  explanation, 
to  deduct  more  than  two  centuries  from  the  time  Moses 
gives,  and  then  make  all  his  coarse,  not  to  say  indecent, 
ridicule  turn  on  the  shortness  of  the  time? 

One  hardly  knows  how  to  characterize  the  infamy  of  such 
a  passage  as  that  about  the  bird-eating  priests  during  the 
time  of  rapid  increase,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  were 
no  prvMtt*  at  all,  and  no  such  rule  as  he  refers  to  during  the 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

entire  430  years!  The  consecration  of  Aaion,  the  first 
priest,  did  not  take  place  till  after  the  Law  was  given  at 
Sinai,  and  the  ordinance  relating  to  the  offering  of  the 
pigeons  was  still  later.  These  are  mere  specimens  of  the 
mistakes  and  misrepresentations  which  form  the  warp  and 
woof  of  this  lecture. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAT  OF  THE  BIBLE.     86 


SCIENTISTS. 

\H»  grand  old  book  of  God  still  stands,  and  this  old  earth, 
the  more  its  leaves  are  turned  over  and  pondered,  the  more 
it  will  suatain  and  illustrate  the  sacred  word. — Professor 
Dana. 

INFIDELITY  has,  from  time,  erected  her  imposing  ramparts, 
and  opened  fire  upon  Christianity  from  a  thousand  batter- 
ies. But  the  moment  the  rays  of  truth  were  concentrated 
upon  their  ramparts  they  melted  away.  The  last  clouds  of 
ignorance  are  passing,  and  the  thunders  of  infidelity  are 
dying  upon  the  ear.  The  union  and  harmony  of  Christian- 
ity and  science  is  a  sure  token  that  the  flood  of  unbelief  and 
ignorance  shall  never  more  go  over  the  world. — Professor 
Hitchcock. 

ALL  human  discoveries  seem  to  be  made  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  confirming,  more  and  more  strongly,  the  truths 
contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. — Sir  John  Herschel. 

THE  Bible  furnishes  the  only  fitting  vehicle  to  express  the 
thoughts  that  overwhelm  us  when  contemplating  the  stellar 
universe. — 0.  M.  Mitchell. 

Lf  my  investigation  of  natural  science.   T  have  always 
hat  whenever  I  can  meet  with  anything  in  the  Bible, 


86  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

on  any  subject,  it  always  affords  me  a  fine  platform  on  which 
to  stand. — Lieutenant  Maury 

IF  the  God  of  love  is  most  appropriately  worshiped  in 
the  Christian  temple,  the  God  of  nature  may  be  equally 
honored  in  the  temple  of  science.  Even  from  its  lofty 
minarets,  the  philosopher  may  summon  the  faithful  to 
prayer;  and  the  priest  and  the  sage  exchange  altars  without 
the  compromise  of  faith  or  knowledge. — Sir  David  Brews- 
ter. 

A  NATION'S  intellectual  progress  has  always  followed — not 
preceded — some  moral  impulse.  The  history  of  the  fine  arts 
shows  that  some  form  of  religion  gave  them  their  earliest 
impulse.  There  has  never  been  a  great  genius  but  has  been 
inspired  in  some  sense  by  religion.  The  thoughts  of  the 
intellect  are  lofty  in  proportion  as  the  sentiments  of  the 
heart  are  profound.  If  we  begin  the  attempt  to  improve 
men  with  the  intellect  we  end  where  we  begun.  Education 
will  not  remove  corruption.  It  may  guide  vice  as  in  ancient 
Rome  and  Athens,  but  will  not  uproot  it.  A  godless  edu- 
cation has  no  power  to  purify.  ^  Instruction  in  morality 
also  has  failed  to  regenerate.  No  man  does  his  duty  simply 
because  he  knows  it  unless  he  loves  it;  nor  are  political  and 
social  changes  effective.  Social  evil  has  its  root  in  the 
individual  heart,  and  cannot  be  removed  except  by  influ- 
ences operating  within  it.  This  fountain  of  man's  corrup- 
tion must  be  purified  to  corrupt  social  vice. — Prof.  Seelye 


STATESMEN. 

THERE  is  a  book  worth  all  other  books  which  were  ever 
printed. — Patrick  Henry. 

THE  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the  world. — John  Adam*. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    87 

So  great  is  my  veneration  for  the  Bible,  that  the  earlier 
my  children  begin  to  read  it,  the  more  confident  will  be  my 
hopes  that  they  will  prove  useful  citizens  to  their  country, 
and  respectable  members  of  society. — John  Quincy  Ad- 
ams. 

IT  is  impossible  to  govern  the  world  without  God.  He 
must  be  worse  than  an  infidel  that  lacks  faith,  and  more 
than  wicked  that  has  not  gratitude  enough  to  acknowledge 
his  obligation. — General  George  Washington. 

POINTING  to  the  family  Bible  on  the  stand,  during  his  last 
illness,  Andrew  Jackson  said  to  his  friend:  "That  book,  sir, 
is  the  rock  on  which  our  republic  rests." 

I  DEEM  the  present  occasion  sufficiently  important  and 
solemn  to  justify  me  in  expressing  to  my  fellow  citizens  a 
profound  reverence  for  the  Christian  religion,  and  a  thorough 
conviction  that  sound  morals,  religious  liberty,  and  a  just 
sense  of  religious  responsibility,  are  essentially  connected 
with  all  true  and  lasting  happiness. — General  Harrison's 
Inaugural  Address. 

As  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  my  opinion  of  whom  you  par- 
ticularly desire,  I  think  the  system  of  morals,  and  His  relig- 
ion, as  He  left  them  to  us,  is  the  best  the  world  ever  saw,  or 
is  likely  to  see. — Benjamin  Franklin. 

Do  you  think  that  your  pen,  or  the  pen  of  any  other  man, 
can  unchristianize  the  mass  of  our  citizens?  Or  have  you 
hopes  of  corrupting  a  few  of  them  to  assist  you  in  so  bad  a 
cause? — Samuel  Adams'  Letter  to  Thomas  Paine. 

CHRISTIANITY  is  the  only  true  and  perfect  religion,  and  that 
in  proportion  as  mankind  adopt  its  principles  and  obey  its 
precepts,  they  will  be  wise  and  happy.  And  a  better  knowl- 
edge of  this  religion  is  to  be  acquired  by  reading  the  Bible 
than  in  any  other  way. — Benjamin  Rush. 


88  •     MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

WHEN  that  illustrious  man,  Chief  Justice  Joy,  was  dying, 
he  was  asked  if  he  had  any  farewell  address  to  leave  his 
children;  he  replied,  "They  have  the  Bible." 

I  ALWAYS  have  had,  and  always  shall  have,  a  profound  re- 
gard for  Christianity,  the  religion  of  my  fathers,  and  for  ita 
rites,  its  usages,  and  observances. — Henry  Clay. 

A  FEW  days  before  his  death,  "  the  foremost  man  of  all 
his  times,"  drew  up  and  signed  this  declaration  of  his  relig- 
ious faith:  "  Lord,  I  believe;  help  thou  mine  unbelief. 
Philosophical  argument,  especially  that  drawn  from  the 
vastness  of  the  universe,  in  comparison  with  the  insignifi- 
cance of  this  globe,  has  sometimes  shaken  my  reason  for 
the  faith  that  is  in  me,  but  my  heart  has  always  assured 
and  reassured  me  that  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  must  be  a 
divine  reality.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  cannot  be  a 
merely  human  production.  This  belief  enters  into  the  very 
depth  of  my  conscience." — Daniel  Webster. 

u  HOLD  fast  to  the  Bible  as  the  sheet  anchor  of  our  liber- 
erties;  write  its  precepts  on  your  hearts,  and  practice  them 
in  your  lives.  To  the  influence  of  this  book  we  are  indebted 
for  the  progress  made  in  true  civilization,  and  to  this  we 
must  look  as  our  guide  in  the  future. —  U.  S.  Grant. 

PHILOSOPHY  has  sometimes  forgotten  God ;  as  great  people 
never  did.  The  skepticism  of  the  last  century  could  not 
uproot  Christianity,  because  it  lived  in  the  hearts  of  the 
millions.  Do  you  think  that  infidelity  is  spreading?  Chris- 
tianity never  lived  in  the  hearts  of  so  many  millions  as  at 
this  moment.  The  forms  under  which  it  is  professed  may 
decay,  for  they,  like  all  that  is  the  work  of  man's  hands,  are 
subject  to  the  changes  and  chances  of  mortal  being;  but  the 
spirit  of  truth  is  incorruptible;  it  may  be  developed,  illus- 
trated and  applied;  it  can  never  die;  it  never  can  decline. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MKN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    89 

No  truth  can  perish.  No  truth  can  pass  away.  The  flame 
is  undying,  though  generations  disappear.  Wherever  mor- 
tal truth  has  started  into  being  humanity  claims  and  guards 
the  bequest  Each  generation  gathers  together  the  imper- 
ishable childreii  of  the  past,  and  increases  them  by  the  new 
sons  of  the  light,  alike  radiant  with  immortality. — Ban- 
croft. 


GREAT      THINKERS. 


IT  is  a  belief  in  the  Bible  which  has  served  .me  as  the 
guide  of  my  moral  and  literary  life. — Goethe. 

I  Acoor.vT  the  Scriptures  of  God  to  be  the  most  sublime 
philosophy. — Sir  Isaac  Newton. 

To  give  a  man  a  full  knowledge  of  true  morality,  I 
should  need  to  send  him  to  no  other  book  than  the  New 
Testament. — John  Locke. 

I  KNOW  the  Bible  is  inspired,  because  it  finds  me  at 
greater  depths  of  my  being  than  any  other  book. — Cols- 
ridge. 

A  NOBLB  book!  All  men's  book.  It  is  our  first  state- 
ment of  the  never-ending  problem  of  man's  destiny  and 
Goii  d  way  with  men  011  earth. — Carlyle. 

I  MUST  confess  the  majesty  of  the  Scriptures  strikes  me 
with  astonishment. — Rousseau. 

"  THERE  is  not  a  boy  nor  a  girl,  all  Christendom  through, 
but  their  lot  is  made  better  by  this  great  book. — Theodore 
Parker. 

TAKE  the  gospel  away,  and  what  a  mockery  is  human 
philosophy!  I  once  met  a  thoughtful  scholar  who  told  me 


90  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  for  years  he  had  read  every  book  which  assailed  the 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  said  that  he  should  have 
become  an  infidel  if  it  had  not  been  for  three  things : 

"  First,  I  am  a  man.  I  am  going  somewhere.  I  am  to- 
night a  day  nearer  the  grave  than  last  night.  I  have  read 
all  that  they  can  tell  me.  There  is  not  one  solitary  ray  of 
light  upon  the  darkness.  They  shall  not  take  away  the 
only  guide  and  leave  me  stone  blind. 

"  Secondly,  I  had  a  mother.  I  saw  her  go  down  into  the 
dark  valley  where  I  am  going,  and  she  leaned  upon  an  un- 
seen arm  as  calmly  as  a  child  goes  to  sleep  upon  the  breast 
of  a  mother.  I  know  that  was  not  a  dream. 

"  Thirdly,"  he  said  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  "  I  have  three 
motherless  daughters.  They  have  no  protector  but  myself. 
I  would  rather  kill  them  than  leave  them  in  this  sinful 
world  if  you  conld  blot  out  from  it  all  the  teachings  of  the 
Gospel." — Bishop  W hippie. 

WHEN  Daniel  Webster  was  in  his  best  moral  state,  and 
when  he  was  in  the  prime  of  his  manhood,  he  was  one  day 
dining  with  a  company  of  literary  gentlemen  in  the  city  of 
Boston.  The  company  was  composed  of  clergymen,  law- 
yers, physicians,  statesmen,  merchants,  and  almost  all 
classes  of  literary  persons.  During  the  dinner  conversa- 
tion incidentally  turned  upon  the  subject  of  Christianity. 
Mr.  Webster,  as  the  occasion  was  in  honor  of  him,  was 
expected  to  take  a  leading  part  in  the  conversation,  and  he 
frankly  stated  as  his  religious  sentiments  his  belief  in  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  and  his  dependence  upon  the  atonement 
of  the  Savior.  A  minister  of  very  considerable  literary 
reputation  sat  almost  opposite  him  at  the  table,  and  he 
looked  at  him  and  said:  "Mr.  Webster,  can  you  compre- 
hend how  Jesus  Christ  could  be  both  God  and  man?  "  Mr. 
Webster,  with  one  of  those  looks  which  no  man  can  imitate, 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEX  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    91 

fixed  his  eyes  upon  him,  and  promptly  and  emphatically 
said:  "No,  sir,  I  cannot  comprehend  it;  and  1  would  be 
ashamed  to  acknowledge  him  as  my  Savior  if  1  could  com- 
prehend it.  If  I  could  comprehend  him,  he  could  be  no 
greater  than  myself,  and  such  is  my  conviction  of  accounta- 
bility to  God,  such  is  my  sense  of  sin  fulness  before  him, 
and  such  is  my  knowledge  of  my  own  incapacity  to  recover 
myself,  that  I  feel  1  need  a  superhuman  Savior." — Bishop 
Janes. 

WHAT  can  be  more  foolish  than  to  think  that  all  this  rare 
fabric  of  Heaven  and  earth  could  come  by  chance,  when  all 
the  skill  of  art  is  not  able  to  make  an  oyster  1 — Je?reirvy 
Taylor. 

IT  would  not  be  worth  while  to  live  if  we  were  to  die 
entirely.  That  which  alleviates  labor  and  sanctifies  toil  ia 
to  have  before  us  the  vision  of  a  better  world  through  the 
darkness  of  this  life.  That  world  is  to  me  more  real  than 
the  chimera  which  we  devour,  and  which  we  call  life.  It  is 
forever  before  my  eyes.  It  is  the  supreme  certainty  of  my 
reason,  as  it  is  the  supreme  consolation  of  my  soul. —  Vic- 
tor Hugo. 

ONCE,  had  I  been  called  upon  to  create  the  earth,  I  should 
have  done  as  the  many  would  now.  I  should  have  laid  it  out 
in  pleasure-grounds,  and  given  man  Milton's  occupation  of 
tending  flowers.  But  I  am  now  satisfied  with  this  wild 
earth,  its  awful  mountains  and  depths,  steeps  and  torrents. 
I  am  not  sorry  to  learn  that  God's  end  is  a  virtue  far 
higher  than  I  should  have  prescribed. — Channing. 

To  do  good  to  men  is  the  great  work  of  life;  to  make 
them  true  Christians  is  the  greatest  good  we  can  do  them. 
Every  investigation  brings  us  round  to  this  point.  Begin 


92  MISTAKES  OF  INGKRSOLL. 

here  and  you  are  like  one  who  strikes  water  from  a  rock  on 
the  summit  of  the  mountains;  it  flows  down  all  the  inter- 
vening tracts  to  the  very  base.  If  we  could  make  each 
man  love  his  neighbor,  we  should  make  a  happy  world. 
The  true  method  is  to  begin  with  ourselves  and  so  extend 
the  circle  around  us.  It  should  be  perpetually  in  our 
minds. — J.  W.  Alexander. 

FROM  philosophy,  from  poetny  and  from  art,  is  heard  the 
acknowledgment  that  there  is  no  repose  for  the  rational 
spirit  but  in  moral  truth.  The  testimony  that  the  whole 
«,*eation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain,  together,  is  as 
loud  and  convincing  from  the  domain  of  letters,  as  it  if 
from  the  cursed  and  thistle-bearing  ground.  From  tt.e 
immortal  longing  and  dissatisfaction  of  Plato,  down  to  the 
wild  and  passionate  restlessness  of  Byron  and  Shelley,  the 
evidence  is  decisive  that  a  spiritual  and  religious  element 
must  enter  into  the  education  of  man  in  order  to  inward 
harmony  and  rest — Dr.  Shedd. 

"  THE  mother  of  a  family  was  married  to  an  infidel,  who 
made  a  jest  of  religion  in  the  presence  of  his  own  children; 
yet  she  succeeded  in  bringing  them  all  up  in  the  fear  of 
the  Lord.  I  oue  day  asked  her  how  she  preserved  them 
from  the  influence  of  a  father  whose  sentiments  »  ;re  so 
openly  opposed  to  her  own.  This  was  her  answer:  'Because 
to  *Qe  authority  of  a  father  I  did  not  oppose  the  authority 
jf  a  mother,  but  that  of  God.  From  their  earliest  years  my 
children  have  always  seen  the  Bible  upon  my  table.  This 
holy  book  has  constituted  the  whole  of  their  religious 
instruction.  I  was  silent  that  I  might  allow  it  to  speak. 
Did  they  propose  a  question,  did  they  commit  any  fault, 
did  they  perform  any  good  action,  I  opened  the  Bible,  and 
the  Bible  answered,  reproved  or  encouraged  them.  The 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    93 

constant  reading  of  the  Scriptures  lias  alone    wrought  the 
prodigy  which  surprises  you.'  " — Adolphe  Monad. 

I  PREACHED  on  Sunday  in  the  parlors  at  Long  Branch. 
The  war  was  over,  and  Admiral  Farragut  and  his  family 
were  spending  the  summer  at  the  Branch.  Sitting  on  the 
portico  of  the  hotel  Monday  morning,  he  said  to  me, 
"  Would  you  like  to  know  how  I  was  enabled  to  serve  my 
country?  It  was  all  owing  to  a  resolution  I  formed  when 
I  was  ten  years  of  age.  My  father  was  sent  down  to  New 
Orleans  with  the  little  navy  we  then  had,  to  look  after  the 
treason  of  Burr.  I  accompanied  him  as  cabin-boy.  I  had 
some  qualities  that  I  thought  made  a  man  of  me.  I  could 
swear  like  an  old  salt;  could  drink  a  stiff  glass  of  grog  as 
if  I  had  doubled  Cape  Horn,  and  could  smoke  like  a  loco- 
motive. I  was  great  at  cards  and  fond  of  gaming  in  every 
shape.  At  the  close  of  the  dinner  one  day,  my  father 
turned  every  body  out  of  the  cabin,  locked  the  door,  and 
said  to  me: 

"  '  David,  what  do  you  mean  to  be? ' 

" '  I  mean  to  follow  the  sea.' 

"  '  Follow  the  sea!  Yes,  be  a  poor,  miserable  drunken 
sailor  before  the  mast,  kicked  and  cuffed  about  the  world, 
and  die  in  some  fever  hospital,  in  a  foreign  clime.' 

"  '  No,'  I  said,  '  I'll  tread  the  quarter-deck  and  command 
as  you  do.' 

" '  No,  David ;  no  boy  ever  trod  the  quarter-deck  with 
luch  principles  as  you  have,  and  such  habits  as  you  exhibit. 
You'll  have  to  change  your  whole  course  of  life  if  you  ever 
become  a  man.' 

"  My  father  left  me  and  went  on  deck.  I  was  stunned 
by  the  rebuke  and  overwhelmed  with  mortification.  *  A 
poor,  miserable,  drunken  sailor  before  the  mast,  kicked  and 
cuffed  about  the  world,  and  to  die  in  some  fever  hospital! 


94  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

That's  my  fate,  is  it?  I'll  change  my  life,  and  change  it  at 
once.  I  will  never  utter  another  oath,  I  will  never  drink 
another  drop  of  intoxicating  liquors,  I  will  never  gamble.' 
And,  as  God  is  my  witness,  I  have  kept  those  three  vows 
to  this  hour.  Shortly  after,  I  became  a  Christian.  That 
act  settled  iny  temporal,  as  it  settled  my  eternal  destiny." 
— Anon. 

A  BIBLE  well  worn  in  that  part  which  contains  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  is  the  book  which  our  age  most  needs. 
There  the  Will  of  the  Father,  those  laws  which  save  souls 
or  damn  them  lie  in  perfect  plainness.  No  commentary 
can  throw  light  upon  them,  no  science  or  learning  can  take 
their  light  away.  They  are  a  part  of  the  universe,  only 
more  imperishable  than  the  stars.  Christ  died  for  man  be- 
cause man  would  not  respect  these  laws  of  the  kingdom. 
Having  died  for  sinners,  He  now  invites  them  to  come  into 
these  laws  of  the  Father.  Do  not  mistake  the  invitation. — 
David  Swing. 

You  never  can  get  at  the  literal  limitation  of  living  facts. 
They  disguise  themselves  by  the  very  strength  of  their  life; 
get  told  again  and  again  in  different  ways  by  all  manner  of 
people;  the  literalness  of  them  is  turned  topsy-turvy,  inside 
out,  over  and  over  again ;  then  the  fools  come  and  read  them 
wrong  side  upwards,  or  else  say  there  never  was  a  fact  at  all. 
Nothing  delights  a  true  blockhead  so  much  as  to  prove  a  neg- 
ative,— to  show  that  everybody  has  been  wrong.  Fancy  the 
delicious  sehsation  to  an  empty-headed  creature  of  fancying 
for  a  moment  that  he  has  emptied  everybody  else's  head  as 
well  as  his  own!  nay,  that  for  once,  his  own  hollow  bottle 
of  a  head  has  had  the  best  of  other  bottles,  arid  has  been  j£r*2 
empty, — first  to  know  nothing. — Ruskin. 

IT  is  not  so  wretched  to  be  blind  as  it  is  not  to  be  capable 
of  euduriii''  blindness.  Let  me  be  the  most  feeble  creature 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEX  SAY  UF  TIIK  BlbLE.     95 

alive  as  long  as  that  feebleness  serves  to  invigorate  the  en- 
ergies of  my  rational  and  immortal  spirit;  so  long  as  in  that 
obscurity  in  which  I  am  enveloped  the  light  of  the  divine 
presence  more  clearly  shines;  and  indeed,  in  my  blindness 
I  enjoy  in  no  inconsiderable  degree  the  favor  of  the  Deity, 
who  regards  me  with  more  tenderness  and  compassion  in 
proportion  as  I  am  able  to  behold  nothing  but  Himself. 
For  the  divine  law  not  only  shields  me  from  injury,  but  al- 
most renders  me  too  sacred  to  attack,  as  from  the  overshad- 
owing of  those  heavenly  wings  which  seem  to  have  occasioned 
this  obscurity. — Milton. 

A  PKINCE  said  to  Rabbi  Gamaliel:  "Your  God  is  a 
thief;  he  surprised  Adam  in  his  sleep,  and  stole  a  rib  from 
him."  The,  Rabbi's  daughter  overheard  this  speech,  and 
whispered  a  word  or  two  in  her  father's  ear,  asking  his 
permission  to  answer  this  singular  opinion  herself.  He 
gave  his  consent.  The  girl  stepped  forward,  and  feigning 
terror  and  dismay,  threw  her  arms  aloft  in  supplication,  and 
cried  out,  "  My  liege,  my  liege,  justice!  revenge!  "  "  What 
has  happened?"  asked  the  prince.  "A  wicked  theft  has 
taken  place,"  she  replied.  "  A  robber  has  crept  secretly 
into  our  house,  carried  away  a  silver  goblet,  and  left  a 
golden  one  in  its  stead."  "  "What  an  upright  thief ! " 
exclaimed  the  prince.  "  Would  that  such  robberies  were 
of  more  frequent  occurrence!"  "Behold,  then,  sir,  the 
kind  of  thief  our  Creator  was;  he  stole  a  rib  from  Adam, 
and  gave  him  a  beautiful  wife  instead."  "Well  said!" 
avowed  the  prince. — Talmud  Sanhedrim. 

ONCE  there  was  a  Judge  who  had  a  colored  man.  The 
colored  man  was  very  godly,  and  the  Judge  used  to  have 
him  to  drive  him  around  in  his  circuit.  The  Judge  used 
often  to  talk  with  him,  and  the  colored  man  would  tell  the 
Judge  about  his  religious  experience,  and  about  his  battles 


96  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

and  conflicts.  One  day  the  Judge  said  to  him:  "Sambo, 
how  is  it  that  you  Christians  are  always  talking  about  the 
conflicts  you  have  with  Satan?  I  am  better  off  than  you 
are,  I  don't  have  any  troubles  or  conflicts,  and  yet  I  am  an 
infidel  and  you  are  a  Christian — always  in  a  muss; — how's 
that,  Sambo?"  This  floored  the  colored  man  for  awhile.  He 
did  n't  know  how  to  meet  the  old  infidel's  argument.  So  he 
ghook  his  head  sorrowfully  and  said:  "I  dunno,  Maasa,  I 
dunno."  The  Judge  always  carried  a  gun  along  with  him 
for  hunting.  Pretty  soon  they  came  to  a  lot  of  ducks.  The 
Judge  took  his  gun  and  blazed  away  at  them,  and  wounded 
one  and  killed  another.  The  Judge  said  quickly:  "You 
jump  in,  Sambo,  and  get  that  wounded  duck  before  he  gets 
off,"  and  did  not  pay  any  attention  to  the  dead  one.  In 
went  Sambo  for  the  wounded  duck,  and  came  out  reflecting. 
The  colored  man  then  thought  he  had  an  illustration.  He 
Baid  to  the  Judge:  "  I  hab  'im  now,  Massa;  I 'se  able  to 
show  you  how  de  Christian  hab  greater  conflict  dan  de  infi- 
del. Do  n't  you  know  de  moment  you  wounded  dat  ar  duck, 
how  anxious  you  was  to  get  'im  out,  and  you  did  n't  care  for 
de  dead,  but  jus'  lef '  him  alone?  "  "  Yes,"  said  the  Judge. 
"Weil,"  said  Sambo,  "ye  see  as  how  dat  are  dead  duck  's  a 
sure  thing.  I  'se  wounded,  and  I  tries  to  get  away  from  the 
debbil.  It  takes  trouble  to  cotch  me.  But,  Massa,  you  are 
a  dead  duck — dar's  no  squabble  for  you;  de  debbil  have  you 
sure ! "  So  the  devil  has  no  conflict  with  the  infidel. — D 
L.  Moody. 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES." 


INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE 

ON 

THE  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES." 


Now  and  then  tome  one  asks  me  why  I  am  endeavoring  to  interfere 
with  the  religious  faith  of  others,  and  why  I  try  to  take  from  the  world 
the  consolation  naturally  arising  from  a  belief  in  eternal  fire.  And  I  an- 
swer, I  want  to  do  what  little  I  can  to  make  my  country  truly  free.  I 
want  to  broaden  the  intellectual  horizon  of  onr  people.  I  want  it  so  that 
we  can  differ  upon  all  those  questions,  and  yet  grasp  each  other's  hands 
in  genuine  friendship.  I  want  in  the  first  place  to  free  the  clergy.  I  am 
a  great  friend  of  theirs,  but  they  don't  seem  to  have  found  it  out  gener- 
ally. I  want  it  so  that  every  minister  will  be  not  a  parrot,  not  an  owl  sit- 
ting upon  a  dead  limb  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  and  hooting  the  hoots  that 
have  been  hooted  for  eighteen  hundred  years.  But  I  want  it  so  that  each 
one  can  be  an  investigator,  a  thinker;  and  1  want  to  make  his  congregation 
grand  enough  so  that  they  will  not  only  allow  him  to  think,  but  will  de- 
mand that  he  shall  think,  and  give  to  them  the  honest  truth  of  hu 
thought.  As  it  is  now,  ministers  are  employed  like  attorneys — for  the 
plaintiff  or  the  defendant.  If  a  few  people  know  of  a  young  man  in  the 
neighborhood  maybe  who  has  not  a  good  constitution — he  may  not  be 
healthy  enough  to  be  wicked — a  young  man  who  has  shown  no  decided 
talent — it  occurs  to  them  to  make  him  a  minister.  They  contribute  and 
send  him  to  some  school .  If  it  turns  out  that  that  young  man  has  more  of 
the  man  in  him  than  they  thought,  and  he  changes  his  opinion,  every 
one  who  contributed  will  feel  himself  individually  swindled — and  they 
will  follow  that  young  man  to  the  grave  with  the  poisoned  shafts  of  mal- 
ice and  slander.  I  want  it  so  that  every  one  will  be  free — ao  that  a  pulpit  wifl 
not  be  a  pillory.  They  have  in  Massachusetts,  at  a  place  called  Andover, 


98  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

a  kind  of  minister- factory;  and  every  professor  in  that  factory  takes  an 
oath  once  in  every  five  years — that  is  as  long  as  an  oath  will  last — that 
not  only  has  he  not  during  the  last  five  years,  but  BO  help  him  God,  he 
will  not  during  the  next  five  years  intellectually  advance;  and  probably 
there  is  no  oath  he  could  easier  keep.  Since  the  foundation  of  that  insti- 
tution there  has  not  been  one  case  of  perjury.  They  believe  the  same 
creed  they  first  taught  when  the  foundation  stone  was  laid,  and  now  when 
they  send  out  a  minister  they  brand  him  as  hardware  from  Sheffield  and 
Birmingham.  And  every  man  who  knows  where  he  was  educated  knows 
his  creed,  knows  every  argument  of  his  creed,  every  book  that  he  reads, 
and  just  what  he  amounts  to  intellectually,  and  knows  he  will  shrink  and 
shrivel,  and  become  solemnly  stupid  day  after  day  until  he  meets  with 
death.  It  is  all  wrong;  it  is  cruel.  Those  men  should  be  allowed  to 
grow.  They  should  have  the  air  of  liberty  and  the  sunshine  of  thought. 

I  want  to  free  the  schools  of  our  country.  I  want  it  so  that  when  a 
professor  in  a  college  finds  some  fact  inconsistent  with  Moses,  he  will  not 
hide  the  fact,  that  it  will  not  be  the  worse  for  him  for  having  discovered 
the  fact.  I  wish  to  see  an  eternal  divorce  and  separation  between  church 
and  schools.  The  common  school  is  the  bread  of  life;  but  there  should 
be  nothing  taught  in  the  schools  except  what  somebody  knows;  and  any- 
thing else  should  not  be  maintained  by  a  system  of  general  taxation.  I 
want  its  professors  so  that  they  will  tell  everything  they  find ;  that  they 
will  be  free  to  investigate  in  every  direction,  and  will  not  be  trammeled 
by  the  superstitions  of  our  day.  What  has  religion  to  do  with  facts  ? 
Nothing.  Is  there  any  such  thing  as  Methodist  mathematics,  Presbyter- 
ian botany,  Catholic  astronomy  or  Baptist  biology?  What  has  any  form 
of  superstition  or  religion  to  do  with  a  fact  or  with  any  science  ?  Nothing 
but  to  hinder,  delay  or  embarrass.  I  want,  then,  to  free  the  schools; 
and  I  want  to  free  the  politicians,  so  that  a  man  will  not  have  to  pretend 
he  is  a  Methodist,  or  his  wife  a  Baptist,  or  his  grandmother  a  Catholic; 
so  that  he  can  go  through  a  campaign,  and  when  he  gets  through  will 
find  none  of  the  dust  of  hypocrisy  on  his  knees. 

I  want  the  people  splendid  enough  that  when  they  desire  men  to 
make  laws  for  them,  they  will  take  one  who  knows  something,  who  has 
brains  enough  to  prophesy  the  destiny  of  the  American  Republic,  no 
matter  what  his  opinions  may  be  upon  any  religious  subject.  Suppose 
we  are  in  a  storm  out  at  sea,  and  the  billows  are  washing  over  our  ship, 
and  it  is  necessary  that  some  one  should  reef  the  topsail,  and  a  man  pre- 
sents himself.  Would  you  stop  him  at  the  foot  of  the  mast  to  find  out 
his  opinion  on  the  five  points  of  Calvinism?  What  has  that  to  do  with 
it?  Congress  has  nothing  to  do  with  baptism  or  any  particular  creed, 
and  from  what  little  experience  1  have  had  of  Washington,  very  little  to 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  99 

do  with  any  kind  of  religion  whatever.  Now  I  hope,  this  afternoon,  this 
magnificent  and  splendid  audience  will  forget  that  they  are  Baptists  or 
Methodists,  and  remember  that  they  are  men  and  women.  These  are  the 
highest  titles  humanity  can  bear — man  and  woman;  and  every  title  you 
add  belittles  them.  Man  is  the  highest;  woman  is  the  highest.  Let  us 
remember  that  we  are  simply  human  beings,  with  interests  in  common. 
And  let  us  remember  that  our  views  depend  largely  upon  the  country  in 
which  we  happen  to  live.  Suppose  we  were  born  in  Turkey  most  of  us 
would  have  been  Mohammedans;  and  when  we  read  in  the  book  that 
when  Mohammed  visited  heaven  he  became  acquainted  with  an  angel 
named  Gabriel,  who  was  so  broad  between  his  eyes  that  it  would  take  a 
smart  camel  three  hundred  days  to  make  the  journey,  we  probably  would 
have  believed  it.  If  we  did  not,  people  would  say:  "That  young  man 
is  dangerous;  he  is  trying  to  tear  down  the  fabric  of  our  religion.  What 
do  you  propose  to  give  us  instead  of  that  angel?  We  cannot  afford  to 
trade  off  an  angel  of  that  size  for  nothing."  Or  if  we  had  been  born  in 
India,  we  would  have  believed  in  a  god  with  three  heads.  Now  we  be- 
lieve in  three  gods  with  one  head.  And  so  we  might  make  a  tour  of  the 
world  and  see  that  every  superstition  that  could  be  imagined  by  the  brain 
of  man  has  been  in  some  place  held  to  be  sacred. 

Now  some  one  says,  "The  religion  of  my  father  and  mother  is  good 
enough  forme."  Suppose  we  all  said  that,  where  would  be  the  progress 
of  the  world?  We  would  have  the  rudest  and  most  barbaric  religion- 
religion  which  no  one  could  believe.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  showing 
real  respect  to  our  parents  to  believe  something  simply  because  they  did. 
Every  good  father  and  every  good  mother  wish  their  children  to  find  out 
more  than  they  knew;  every  good  father  wants  his  son  to  overcome  some 
obstacle  that  he  could  not  grapple  with;  and  if  you  wish  to  reflect  credit 
on  your  father  and  mother,  do  it  by  accomplishing  more  than  they  did, 
because  you  live  in  a  better  time.  Every  nation  has  had  what  you  call  a 
sacred  record,  and  the  older  the  more  sacred,  the  more  contradictory  and 
the  more  inspired  is  the  record.  We,  of  course,  are  not  an  exception,  and 
I  propose  to  talk  a  little  about  what  is  called  the  Pentateuch,  a  book,  or 
a  collection  of  books,  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses.  And  right 
here  in  the  commencement  let  me  say  that  Moses  never  wrote  one  word 
of  the  Pentateuch — not  one  word  was  written  until  he  had  been  dust  and 
ashes  for  hundreds  of  years.  But  as  the  general  opinion  is  that  Moses 
wrote  these  books,  I  have  entitled  this  lecture  the  "The  Mistakes  of 
Moses."  For  the  sake  of  this  lecture,  we  will  admit  that  he  wrote  it. 
Nearly  every  maker  of  religion  has  commenced  by  making  the  world; 
and  it  is  one  of  the  safest  things  to  do,  because  no  one  can  contradict  as 
having  been  present,  and  it  gives  free  scope  to  the  imagination.  These 


100  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

books,  in  times  when  there  was  a  vast  difference  between  the  educated 
and  the  ignorant,  became  inspired  and  people  bowed  down  and  wor- 
shipped them. 

I  saw  a  little 'while  ago  a  Bible  with  immense  oaken  covers,  with 
hasps  and  clasps  large  enough  almost  for  a  penitentiary,  and  I  can  imagine 
how  that  book  would  be  regarded  by  barbarians  in  Europe  when  not  more 
than  one  person  in  a  dozen  could  read  and  write.  In  imagination  I  saw 
it  carried  into  the  cathedral,  heard  the  chant  of  the  priest,  saw  the  swing- 
ing of  the  censer  and  the  smoke  rising;  and  when  that  Bible  was  put  on 
the  altar  I  can  imagine  the  barbarians  looking  at  it  and  wondering  what 
influence  that  black  book  could  have  on  their  lives  and  future.  I  do  not 
wonder  that  they  imagined  it  was  inspired.  None  of  them  could  write  a 
book,  and  consequently  when  they  saw  it  they  adored  it;  they  were 
stricken  with  awe;  and  rascals  took  advantage  of  that  awe. 

Now  they  say  that  the  book  is  inspired.  I  do  not  care  whether  it  ii  or 
not;  the  question  is:  Is  it  true?  If  it  is  true  it  don't  need  to  be  inspired. 
Nothing  needs  inspiration  except  a  falsehood  or  ft  mistake.  A  fact  never 
went  into  partnership  with  a  miracle.  Truth  scorns  the  assistance  of  won- 
ders. A  fact  will  fit  every  other  fact  in  the  universe,  and  that  is  how  you 
can  tell  whether  it  is  or  is  not  a  fact.  A  lie  will  not  fit  anything  except 
another  lie  made  for  the  express  purpose ^  and,  finally,  some  one  gets  tired 
of  lying,  and  the  last  lie  will  not  fit  the  next  fact,  and  then  there  is  a 
chance  for  inspiration.  Right  then  and  there  a  miracle  is  needed.  The 
real  question  is:  In  the  light  of  science,  in  the  light  of  the  brain  and 
heart  of  the  nineteenth  century,  is  this  book  true?  The  gentlemen  who 
wrote  it  begins  by  telling  us  that  God  made  the  universe  out  of  nothing. 
That  I  cannot  conceive;  it  may  be  so,  but  I  cannot  conceive  it.  Nothing, 
regarded  in  the  light  of  raw  material,  is,  to  my  mind,  a  decided  and  dis- 
astrous failure.  I  cannot  imagine  of  nothing  being  made  into  something, 
any  more  than  I  can  of  something  being  changed  back  into  nothing.  1 
cannot  conceive  of  force  aside  from  matter,  because  force  to  be  force  musi 
be  active,  and  unless  there  is  matter  there  is  nothing  for  force  to  act  upon. 
and  consequently  it  cannot  be  active.  So  I  simply  say  I  cannot  compre- 
hend it.  I  cannot  beileve  it.  I  may  roast  for  this,  but  it  is  my  honest 
opinion.  The  next  thing  he  proceeds  to  tell  us  is  that  God  divided  the 
darkness  from  the  light;  and  right  here  let  me  say  when  I  speak  about 
God  I  simply  mean  the  being  described  by  the  Jews.  There  may  be 
in  immensity  some  being  beneath  whose  wing  the  universe  exists,  whose 
•very  thought  is  a  glittering  star,  but  I  know  nothing  about  Him, — not 
the  slightest, — and  this  afternoon  I  am  simply  talking  about  the  being 
described  by  the  Jewish  people.  When  I  say  God,  I  mean  Him.  Moses 
describe*  God  dividing  th»  light  from  the  darkness.  I  suppose  that  at 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  101 

that  time  they  must  have  been  mixed.  You  can  readily  see  how  light  and 
darkness  can  get  mixed.  They  must  have  been  entities.  The  reason  I 
think  so  is  because  in  that  same  book  I  find  that  darkness  overspread 
Egypt  so  thick  that  it  could  be  felt,  and  they  used  to  have  on  exhibition 
in  Rome  a  bottle  of  the  darkness  that  once  overspread  Egypt.  The  gen- 
tleman who  wrote  this  in  imagination  saw  God  dividing  light  from  the 
darkness.  I  am  sure  the  man  who  wrote  it,  believed  darkness  to  be  an 
entity,  a  something,  a  tangible  thing  that  can  be  mixed  with  light. 

The  next  thing  that  he  informs  us  is  that  God  divided  the  waters  above 
the  finnanent  from  those  below  the  firmanent.  The  man  who  wrote  that 
believed  the  firmanent  to  be  a  solid  affair.  And  that  is  what  the  gods 
did.  You  recollect  the  gods  came  down  and  made  love  to  the  daughter* 
of  men — and  I  never  blamed  them  for  it.  I  have  never  read  a  description 
of  any  heaven  I  would  not  leave  on  the  same  errand.  That  is  where  the 
godl  lived.  That  is  where  they  kept  the  water.  It  was  solid.  That  is 
the  reason  the  people  prayed  for  rain.  They  believed  that  an  angel  could 
take  a  lever,  raise  a  window  and  let  out  the  desired  quantity.  I  find  in  the 
Psalms  that  "  He  bowed  the  heavens  and  came  down;"  and  we  read  that 
the  children  of  men  built  a  tower  to  reach  the  heavens  and  climb  into  the 
abode  of  the  gods.  The  man  who  wrote  that  believed  the  firmanent  to 
be  solid.  He  knew  nothing  about  the  laws  of  evaporation.  He  did  not 
know  that  the  sun  wooed  with  amorous  kiss  the  waves  of  the  sea,  and 
that,  disappointed,  their  vaporous  sighs  changed  to  tears  and  fell  again 
as  rain.  The  next  thing  he  tells  us  is  that  the  grass  began  to  grow,  and 
the  branches  of  the  trees  laughed  into  blossom,  and  the  grass  ran  up  the 
shoulder  of  the  hills,  and  yet  not  a  solitary  ray  of  light  had  left  the 
eternal  quiver  of  the  sun.  Not  a  blade  of  grass  had  ever  been  touched 
by  a  gleam  of  light.  And  I  do  not  think  that  grass  will  grow  .to 
hurt  without  a  gleam  of  sunshine.  I  think  the  man  who  wrote  that 
•imply  made  a  mistake,  and  is  excusable  to  a  certain  degree.  The  next 
day  he  made  the  sun  and  moon — the  sun  to  rule  the  day  and  the  moon  to 
rule  the  night.  Do  you  think  the  man  who  wrote  that  knew  anything 
about  the  size  of  the  sun?  I  think  he  thought  it  was  about  three  feet  in 
diameter,  because  I  find  in  some  book  that  the  sun  was  stopped  a  whole 
day,  to  give  a  general  named  Joshua  time  to  kill  a  few  more  Amalekitea; 
and  the  moon  was  stopped  also.  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  sun  would 
give  light  enough  without  stopping  the  moon;  but  as  they  were  in  the 
•topping  business  they  did  it  just  for  devilment.  At  another  time,  we 
read,  the  sun  was  turned  ten  degrees  backward  to  convince  Hezekiah 
that  he  was  not  going  to  die  of  a  boil.  How  much  easier  it  would  have 
been  to  cure  the  boil.  The  man  who  wrote  that  thought  the  sun  was  two 
or  three  feet  in  diameter,  and  could  be  stopped  and  pulled  around  like  the 


102  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

nm  and  moon  in  a  theatre.  Do  you  know  that  the  sun  throws  out  every 
second  of  time  as  much  heat  as  could  be  generated  by  burning  eleven 
thousand  millions  tons  of  coal?  I  don't  believe  he  knew  that,  or  that  he 
knew  the  motion  of  the  earth.  I  don't  believe  he  knew  that  it  was  turn- 
ing on  its  axis  at  the  rate  of  a  thousand  miles  an  hour,  because  if  he  did, 
he  would  have  understood  the  immensity  of  heat  that  would  have  been 
generated  by  stopping  the  world.  It  has  been  calculated  by  one  of  the 
best  mathematicians  and  astronomers  that  to  stop  the  world  would  cau.-e 
is  much  heat  as  it  would  take  to  burn  a  lump  of  solid  coal  three  times  aa 
big  as  the  globe.  And  yet  we  find  in  that  book  that  the  sun  was  not  onl> 
stopped,  but  turned  back  ten  degrees,  simply  to  convince  a  gentlemai 
that  he  was  not  going  to  die  of  a  boil.  They  may  say  I  will  be  daninec 
if  I  do  not  .believe  that,  and  I  tell  them  I  will  if  I  do. 

Then  he  gives  us  the  history  of  astronomy,  and  he  gives  it  to  us  in  five 
words:  "  He  made  the  stars  also."  He  came  very  near  forgetting  tht 
stars.  Do  you  believe  that  the  man  who  wrote  that  knew  that  there  are 
stars  as  much  larger  than  this  earth  as  this  earth  is  larger  than  the  apple 
which  Adam  and  Eve  are  said  to  have  eaten?  Do  you  believe  that  he 
knew  that  this  world  is  but  a  speck  in  the  shining,  glittering  universe  of 
existence?  I  would  gather  from  that  that  he  made  the  stars  after  he  got 
the  world  done.  The  telescope,  in  reading  the  infinite  leaves  of  the 
heavens,  has  ascertained  that  light  travels  at  the  rate  of  192,000  miles 
per  second,  and  it  would  require  millions  of  years  to  come  from  some  of 
the  stars  to  this  earth.  Yet  the  beams  of  those  stars  mingle  in  our 
atmosphere,  so  that  if  those  distant  orbs  were  fashioned  when  this  world 
began,  we  must  have  been  whirling  in  space  not  six  thousand,  but  many 
millions  of  years.  Do  you  believe  the  man  who  wrote  that  as  a  history 
ef  astronomy  really  knew  that  this  world  was  but  a  speck  compared  with 
millions  of  sparkling  orbs  ?  I  do  not.  He  then  proceeds  to  tell  us  that 
God  made  fish  and  cattle,  and  that  man  and  woman  were  created  male 
and  female.  The  first  account  stops  at  the  second  verse  of  the  second 
chapter.  You  see,  the  Bible  originally  was  not  divided  into  chapters; 
the  first  Bible  that  was  ever  divided  into  chapters  in  our  language  was 
made  in  the  year  of  grace  1550.  The  Bible  was  originally  written  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  the  Hebrew  language  at  that  time  had  no  vowels 
in  writing.  It  was  written  entirely  with  consonants,  and  without  being 
divided  into  chapters  or  into  verses,  and  there  was  no  system  of  punctu- 
ation whatever.  After  you  go  home  to-night  write  an  English  sen  ence 
or  two  with  only  consonants  close  together,  and  you  will  find  that  it  will 
take  twice  as  much  inspiration  to  read  i*  as  it  did  to  write  it.  When  the 
Bible  was  divided  into  verses  and  chapters,  the  divisions  were  not  alway* 
correct,  and  so  the  division  between  the  first  and  second  chapter  of  Gen 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  108 

ens  is  not  in  the  right  place.  The  second  account  of  the  creation  com- 
mences at  the  third  verse,  and  it  differs  from  the  first  in  two  «>«senual 
points.  In  the  first  account  man  is  the  last  made;  m  the  second,  man  is 
made  before  the  beasts.  In  the  first  account,  man  is  made  "male  and 
female;  "  in  the  second  only  a  man  is  made,  and  there  is  no  intention  of 
making  a  woman  whatever. 

You  will  find  by  read  in  or  that  second  chapter  that  God  tried  to  palm 
off  on  Adam  a  beast  as  his  helpmeet.  Everybody  talks  about  the  Bible 
and  nobody  reads  it;  that  is  the  reason  it  is  so  generally  believed.  I  am 
probably  the  only  man  hi  the  United  States  who  has  read  the  Bible 
through  this  year.  I  have  wasted  that  time,  but  I  had  a  purpo-o  in 
view.  Just  read  it,  and  you  will  find,  about  the  twenty-third  ver^-.  that 
God  caused  all  the  animals  to  walk  before  Adam  in  order  that  li<>  might 
name  them.  And  the  animals  came  like  a  menagerie  into  town,  and  as 
Adam  looked  at  all  the  crawlers,  jumpers  ar.d  creepers,  this  God  stood  by 
to  see  what  he  would  call  them.  After  this  procession  passed,  it  was 
pathetically  remarked,  "Yet  was  there  not  found  any  helpmeet  for 
Adam."  Adam  didn't  see  anything  that  he  could  fancy.  And  1  am  glad 
he  didn't.  If  he  had,  there  would  not  have  been  a  free-thinker  in  this 
world;  we  should  have  all  died  orthodox.  And  finding  Adam  was  so  par- 
ticular, God  had  to  make  him  a  helpmeet,  and  having  used  up  the  nothing 
he  was  compelled  to  take  part  of  the  man  to  make  the  wpman  with,  and 
he  took  from  the  man  a  rib.  How  did  he  get  it?  And  then  imagine  a 
God  with  a  bone  in  his  hand,  and  about  to  start  a  woman,  trying  to  make 
up  his  mind  whether  to  make  a  blonde  or  a  brunette. 

Right  here  it  is  only  proper  that  I  should  warn  you  of  the  consequenceB 
of  laughing  at  any  story  in  the  holy  Bible.  When  you  come  to  die,  your 
laughing  at  this  story  will  be  a  thorn  in  your  pillow.  As  you  look  back 
upon  the  record  of  your  life,  no  matter  how  many  men  you  have  wrecked 
and  ruined,  and  no  matter  how  many  women  you  have  deceived  and 
deserted — all  that  may  be  forgiv  en  you;  but  if  you  recollect  that  you  have 
laughed  at  God's  book  you  will  see  through  the  shadows  of  death, 
the  leering  looks  of  fiends  and  the  forked  tongues  of  devils.  Let  me  show 
yon  how  it  will  be:  For  instance,  it  is  the  day  of  judgment.  When  the 
man  is  called  up  by  the  recording  secretary,  or  whoever  does  the  cross- 
examining,  he  says  to  his  soul:  "  Where  are  you  from?"  "  I  am  from 
the  world."  "Yes,  sir.  What  kind  of  a  man  were  you?"  "Well,  I 
don't  like  to  talk  about  myself."  "But  you  have  to.  What  kind  of  a 
man  were  you?  "  "Well,  I  was  a  good  fellow;  I  loved  my  wife,  I  loved 
my  children.  My  home  was  my  heaven;  my  fireside  was  my  paradise, 
and  to  eit  there  and  see  the  lights  and  shadows  falling  on  the  faces  of 
tliose  I  love,  that  to  me  was  a  perpetual  joy.  I  never  gave  one  of  them  a 


104  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

•olitary  moment  of  pain.  I  don't  owe  a  dollar  in  the  world,  and  I  left 
enough  to  pay  my  funeral  expenses  and  keep  the  wolf  of  want  from  the 
•door  of  the  house  I  loved.  That  is  the  kind  of  a  man  I  am."  "  Did  you 
%>elong  to  any  church?"  "I  did  not.  They  were  too  narrow  forme. 
They  were  always  expecting  to  be  happy  simply  because  somebody  else 
was  to  be  damned."  "  Well,  did  you  believe  that  rib  story?"  "  What  rib- 
story?  Do  you  mean  that  Adam  and  Eve  business?  No,  I  did  not.  To 
tell  you  the  God's  truth,  that  was  a  little  more  than  I  could  swallow." 
"To  hell  with  him!  Next.  Where  are  you  from?"  "I'm  from  the 
world,  too."  "Do  you  belong1  to  any  church?"  "Yes,  sir,  and  to  the 
Young  Men's  Christian  Association."  "What  ia  your  business?" 
"  Cashier  in  a  bank."  "  Did  you  ever  run  off  with  any  of  the  money?" 
44 1  don't  like  to  tell,  sir."  "  Well,  but  you  have  to."  "Yes,  sir;  Idid." 
"What  kind  of  a  bank  did  you  have?"  "A  savings  bank."  "How 
much  did  you  run  off  with  ?"  "  One  hundred  thousand  dollars."  "  Did 
you  take  anything  else  along  with  you?"  "Yes,  sir."  "What?"  "1 
took  my  neighbor's  wife."  "  Did  you  have  a  wife  and  children  of  your 
own?"  "  Yes,  sir."  "  And  you  deserted  them ?"  "  Oh,  yes;  bu  ,  such 
was  my  confidence  hi  God  that  I  believed  he  would  take  care  of  them.'' 
"  Have  you  heard  of  them  since?"  "  No,  sir."  '  "  Did  you  believe  that 
rib  story?"  "Ah,  bless  your  soul;  yes!  I  believe  all  of  it,  sir;  I  often 
used  to  be  sorry  that  there  were  not  harder  stories  yet  in  the  Bible,  so  thai 
I  could  show  what  my  faith  could  do."  "  You  believed  it,  did  you?" 
44  Yes,  with  all  my  heart."  "Give  him  a  harp." 

I  simply  wanted  to  show  you  how  important  it  is  to  believe  these  sto- 
ries. Of  all  the  authors  in  the  world  God  hates  a  critic  the  worst.  Hav- 
ing got  this  woman  done  he  brought  her  to  the  man,  and  they  started 
housekeeping,  and  a  few  minutes  afterward  a  snake  came  through  a  crack 
in  the  fence  and  commenced  to  talk  with  her  on  the  subject  of  fruit.  She 
was  not  acquainted  in  the  neighborhood,  and  she  did  not  know  whether 
snakes  talked  or  not,  or  whether  they  knew  anything  about  the  apples  or 
not.  Well,  she  was  misled,  and  the  husband  ate  some  of  those  apples 
and  laid  it  all/-on  his  wife;  and  there  is  where  the  mistake  was  made. 
God  ought  to  have  rubbed  him  out  once.  He  might  have  known  that  no 
good  could  coine  of  starting  the  world  with  a  man  like  that.  They  were 
turned  out.  Then  the  trouble  commenced,  and  people  got  worse  and 
worse.  God,  you  must  recollect,  was  holding  the  reins  of  government, 
but  he  did  nothing  for  them.  He  allowed  them  to  live  six  hundred  and 
eixty-nine  years  without  knowing  their  A.  B.  C.  He  never  started  a 
school,  not  even  a  Sunday  school.  He  didn't  even  keep  His  own  boys  at 
home.  And  the  world  got  worse  every  day,  and  finally  he  concluded  to 
drown  them.  Yet  that  same  god  has  the  impudence  to  tell  me  how  to 


" MIS TAKES  OF  MOSES."  105 

raise  my  own  children.  What  would  you  think  of  a  neighbor,  who  had  just 
killed  his  babes  giving  you  his  views  on  domestic  economy?  God  found 
that  he  could  do  nothing  with  them  and  He  said.  "  I  will  drown  thi»m 
all,  except  a  few."  And  He  picked  out  a  fellow  by  the  name  of  Noah, 
that  had  been  a  bachelor  for  five  hundred  years.  If  I  had  to  drown  any- 
body, I  would  have  drowned  him.  1  believe  that  Noah  had  then  been 
married  something  like. one  hundred  years.  God  told  him  to  build  a  boat, 
and  he  built  one  five  hundred  feet  long,  eighty  or  ninety  feet  broad  and 
fifty-five  feet  high,  with  one  door  shutting  on  the  outside,  and  one  win- 
dow twenty-two  inches  square.  If  Noah  had  any  hobby  in  the  world  it 
was  vetilation.  Then  into  this  ark  he  put  a  certain  number  of  all  the 
animals  in  the  world.  Naturalists  have  ascertained  that  at  that  ume 
there  were  at  least  eleven  hundred  thousand  insects  necessary  to  go  into 
the  ark,  about  forty  thousand  mammalia,  sixteen  hundred  reptilia,,  to  say 
nothing  about  the  mastodon,  the  elephant  and  the  animalcuhe,  of  which 
thousands  live  upon  a  single  leaf  and  which  cannot  be  seen  by  the  naked 
eye.  Noah  had  no  microscope,  and  yet  he  had  to  pick  them  out  by  pairs. 
You  have  no  idea  the  trouble  that  man  had.  Some  say  that  the  flood 
was  not  universal,  that  it  was  partial.  Why  then  did  God  say:  "  I  will 
destroy  every  living  thing  beneath  the  heavens."  If  it  was  partial  why 
did  Noah  save  the  birds?  An  ordinary  bird,  tending  strictly  to  business, 
can  beat  a  partial  flood.  Why  did  he  put  the  birds  in  there — the  eagles,  the 
vultures,  the  condors — if  it  was  only  a  partial  flood?  And  how  did  he 
get  them  in  there  ?  Were  they  inspired  to  go  there,  or  did  he  drive  them 
ap?  Did  the  polar  bear  leave  his  home  of  ice  and  start  for  the  tropics 
inquiring  for  Noah;  or  could  the  kangaroo  come  from  Australia  unlesa 
he  was  inspired,  or  somebody  was  behind  him?  Then  there  are  animals 
on  this  hemisphere  not  on  that.  How  did  he  get  them  across?  And 
there  are  some  animals  which  would  be  very  unpleasant  in  an  ark  unlesa 
the  ventilation  was  very  perfect. 

When  he  got  the  animals  in  the  ark,  God  shut  the  door  and  Noah 
pulled  down  the  window.  And  then  it  began  to  rain,  and  it  kept  on 
raining  until  the  water  went  twenty-nine  feet  over  the  highest  mountain. 
Chimborazo,  then  as  now,  lifted  its  head  above  the  clouds,  and  then  as 
now,  there  sat  the  condor.  And  yet  the  waters  rose  and  rose  over  every 
mountain  in  the  world — twenty-nine  feet  above  the  highest  peaks,  cov- 
ered with  snow  and  ice.  How  deep  were  these  waters?  About  five  and 
a  half  miles.  How  long  did  it  rain?  Forty  days.  How  much  did  it 
have  to  rain  a  day?  About  eight  hundred  feet.  How  is  that  for  damp- 
neaa?  No  wonder  they  said  the  windows  of  the  heavens  were  open,  li  [ 
had  been  there  I  would  have  said  the  whole  side  of  the  house  was  out.  Ho\v 
long  were  they  in  this  ark?  A  year  and  ten  days,  floating  around  v=:  u 


106  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

no  rudder,  no  sail,  nobody  on  the  outside  at  all.  The  window  was  abut, 
and  there  was  no  door,  except  the  one  that  shut  on  the  outside.  Who 
ran  this  ark — who  took  care  of  it?  Finally  it  came  down  on  Mount  Ararat, 
a  peak  seventeen  thousand  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea,  with  about 
three  thousand  feet  of  snow,  and  it  stopped  there  simply  to  give  the  ani- 
mals from  the  tropics  a  chance.  Then  Noah  opened  the  window  and  got 
a  breath  of  fresh  air,  and  he  let  out  all  the  animals;  and  then  Noah  took 
a  drink,  and  God  made  a  bargain  "with  him  that  He  would  not  drown  us 
any  more,  and  He  put  a  rainbow  in  the  clouds  and  said:  "  When  I  see 
that  I  will  recollect  that  I  have  promised  not  to  drown  you."  Because 
if  it  was  not  for  that  He  is  apt  to  drown  us  at  any  moment.  Now  can 
anybody  believe  that  that  is  the  origin  of  the  rainbow?  Are  you  not 
all  familiar  with  the  natural  causes  which  bring  those  beautiful  arches 
before  our  eyes  ?  Then  the  people  started  out  again,  and  they  were  as 
bad  as  before.  Here  let  me  ask  why  God  did  not  make  Noah  in  the  first 
place?  He  knew  he  would  have  to  drown  Adam  and  Eve  and  all  his 
family.  Then  another  thing,  why  did  He  want  to  drown  the  animals? 
What  had  they  done?  What  crime  had  they  committed?  It  ia  very 
hard  to  answer  these  questions — that  is,  for  a  man  who  has  only  been 
born  once.  After  a  while  they  tried  to  build  a  tower  to  get  into  heaven, 
and  the  gods  heard  about  it  and  said:  "Let's  go  down  and  see  what  man 
is  up  to."  They  came,  and  found  things  a  great  deal  worse  than  they 
thought,  and  thereupon  they  confounded  the  language  to  prevent  them 
succeeding,  so  that  the  fellow  up  above  could  not  shout  down  "mortar  " 
or  "  brick  "  to  the  one  below,  and  they  had  to  give  it  up.  Is  it  possible 
that  any  one  believes  that  that  is  the  reason  why  we  have  the  variety  of 
languages  in  the  world?  Do  you  know  that  language  is  born  of  human 
experience,  and  is  a  physical  science?  Do  you  know  that  every  word  has 
been  suggested  in  some  way  by  the  feelings  or  observations  of  man — that 
there  are  words  as  tender  as  the  dawn,  as  serene  as  the  stars,  and  others 
as  wild  as  the  beasts?  Do  you  know  that  language  is  dying  and  being 
born  continually — that  every  language  has  its  cemetery  and  cradle,  its 
bud  an<kblossom,  and  withered  leaf?  Man  has  loved,  enjoyed  and  suf- 
fered, aim  language  is  simply  the  expression  he  gives  those  experiences. 
Then  the  world  began  to  divide,  and  the  Jewish  nation  was  started. 
Now  I  want  to  say  that  at  one  time  your  ancestors,  like  mine,  were  bar- 
barians. If  the  Jewish  people  had  to  write  these  books  now  they  would  be 
civilized  books,  and  I  do  not  hold  them  responsible  for  what  their  ancestora 
did.  We  find  the  Jewish  people  first  in  Canaan,  and  there  were  seventy 
of  them,  counting  Joseph  and  his  children  already  in  Egypt.  They  lived 
two  hundred  and  fifteen  years,  and  they  then  went  down  into  Egypt  and 
itayed  there  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years;  they  were  four  hundred  and 


MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  107 

thirty  years  in  Canaan  and  Egypt.  How  many  did  they  have  when 
they  went  to  Egypt?  Seventy.  How  many  were  they  at  the  end 
of  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years?  Three  millions.  That  is  a  good 
many.  We  had  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  in  this  country  three  mil- 
lions of  people.  Since  that  time  there  have  been  four  doubles,  until  we 
have  forty-eight  millions  to-day.  How  many  would  the  Jews  number  at 
the  same  ratio  in  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years?  Call  it  eight  doubles 
and  we  have  forty  thousand.  But  instead  of  forty  thousand  they  had 
three  millions.  How  do  I  know  they  had  three  millions  ?  Because  they 
had  six  hundred  thousand  men  of  war.  For  every  honest  voter  in  the 
State  of  Illinois  there  will  be  five  other  people,  and  there  are  always  more 
voters  than  men  of  war.  They  must  have  had  at  the  lowest  possible  esti- 
mate three  millions  of  people.  Is  that  true?  Is  there  a  minister  in  the 
city  of  Chicago  [that  will  certify  to  his  own  idiocy  by  claiming  that  they 
could  have  increased  to  three  millions  by  that  time  ?  If  there  is,  let  him 
say  so.  Do  not  let  him  talk  about  the  civilizing  influence  of  a  lie. 

When  they  got  into  the  desert  they  took  a  census  to  see  how  many  first- 
born children  there  were.  They  found  they  had  twenty-two  thousand 
two  hundred  and  seventy-three  first  born  males.  It  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose there  was  about  the  same  number  of  first  born  girls,  or  forty-five 
thousand  first  born  children.  There  must  have  been  about  as  many 
mothers  as  first-born  children.  Dividing  three  millions  by  forty-five 
thousand  mothers,  and  you  will  find  that  the  women  in  Israel  had  to  have 
on  the  average  sixty-eight  children  apiece.  Some  stories  are  too  thin. 
This  is  too  thick.  Now,  we  know  that  among  three  million  people  there 
will  be  about  three  hundred  births  a  day;  and  according  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, whenever  a  child  was  born  the  mother  had  to  make  a  sacrifice — a 
sin-offering  for  the  crime  of  having  been  a  mother.  If  there  is  in  this  uni- 
verse anything  that  is  infinitely  pure,  it  is  a  mother  with  her  child  in  her 
arms.  Every  woman  had  to  have  a  sacrifice  of  a  couple  of  doves,  a  couple 
of  pigeons,  and  the  priests  had  to  eat  those  pigeons  in  the  most  holy  place. 
At  that  time  there  were  at  least  three  hundred  births  a  day,  and  the  priests 
had  to  cook  and  eat  those  pigeons  in  the  most  holy  place;  and  at  that 
time  there  were  only  three  priests.  Two  hundred  birds  apiece  per  day! 
I  look  upon  them  as  the  champion  bird-eaters  of  the  world. 

Then  where  were  these  Jews?  They  were  upon  the  desert  of  Sinai; 
and  Sahara  compared  to  that  is  a  garden.  Imagine  an  ocean  of  lava,  torn 
by  storm  and  vexed  by  tempest,  suddenly  gazed  at  by  a  Gorgon  and 
changed  to  stone.  Such  was  the  desert  of  Sinai.  The  whole  supplies  of 
the  world  could  not  maintain  three  millions  of  people  on  the  desert  of 
Sinai  for  forty  years.  It  would  cost  one  hundred  thousand  millions  of 
dollars,  and  would  bankrupt  Christendom.  And  yet  there  they  wera 


108  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

with  flocks  and  herds — so  many  that  they  sacrificed  over  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  first- born  lambs  at  one  time.  It  would  require  millions  of 
acres  to  support  those  flocks,  and  yet  there  was  no  blade  of  grass,  and 
there  is  no  account  of  it  raining  baled  hay.  They  sacrificed  one  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  lambs,  and  the  blood  had  all  to  be  sprinkled  on  the 
altar  within  two  hours,  and  there  were  only  three  priests.  They  would 
have  to  sprinkle  the  blood  of  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  lambs  per  minute. 
Then  all  the  people  gathered  in  front  of  the  tabernacle  eighteen  feet  deep. 
Three  millions  of  people  would  make  a  column  six  miles  long.  Some 
reverend  gentlemen  say  they  were  ninety  feet  deep.  Well,  that  would 
make  a  column  of  over  a  mile. 

Where  were  these  people  going?  They  were  going  to  the  Holy  Land. 
How  large  was  it?  Twelve  thousand  square  miles — one-fifth  the  size  of 
Illinois — a  frightful  country,  covered  with  rocks  and  desolation.  There 
never  was  a  land  agent  in  the  city  of  Chicago  that  would  not  have  blushed 
with  shame  to  have  described  that  land  as  flowing  with  milk  and  honey. 
Do  you  believe  that  God  Almighty  ever  went  into  partnership  with 
hornets?  Is  it  necessary  unto  salvation?  God  said  to  the  Jews:  "  I  will 
send  hornets  before  you,  to  drive  out  the  Canaanites."  How  would  a 
hornet  know  a  Canaanite?  Is  it  possible  that  God  inspired  the  hornets 
— that  he  granted  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  horneta?  I  am 
willing  to  admit  that  nothing  in  the  world  would  be  better  calculated  to 
make  a  man  leave  his  native  country  than  a  few  hornets  attending 
strictly  to  business.  God  said  "Kill  the  Canaanites  slowly."  Why? 
"  Lest  the  beasts  of  the  field  increase  upon  you."  How  many  Jews  were 
there?  Three  millions.  Going  to  a  country,  how  large?  Twelve  thou- 
sand square  miles.  But  were  there  nations  already  in  this  Holy  Land  ? 
Yes,  there  were  seven  nations  "mightier  than  the  Jews."  Say  there 
would  be  twenty-one  millions  when  they  got  there,  or  twenty- four  millions 
with  themselves.  Yet  they  were  told  to  kill  them  slowly,  lest  the  beasts 
of  the  field  increase  upon  them.  Is  there  a  man  in  Chicago  that  believes 
that!  Then  what  does  he  teach  it  to  little  children  for?  Let  him  tell 
the  truth. 

So  the  same  God  went  into  partnership  with  snakes.  The  children 
of  Israel  lived  on  manna— one  account  says  all  the  time,  and  another  only 
a  little  while.  That  is  the  reason  there  is  a  chance  for  commentaries, 
and  you  can  exercise  faith.  If  the  book  was  reasonable  everybody  could 
get  to  heaven  in  a  moment.  But  whenever  it  looks  as  if  it  could  not  be 
that  way  and  you  believe,  you  are  almost  a  saint,  and  when  you  know  it 
is  not  that  way  and  believe  you  are  a  saint.  He  fed  them  on  manna. 
Now  manna  is  very  peculiar  stuff.  It  would  melt  in  the  sun,  and  yet 
they  used  to  cook  it  by  seething  and  baking.  I  would  as  soon  think  of 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  109 

frying  snow  or  boiling  icicles.  But  this  manna  had  other  peculiar  qual- 
ities. It  shrank  to  an  omer,  no  matter  how  much  they  gathered,  and 
swelled  up  to  an  omer,  no  matter  how  little  they  gathered.  What  a 
magnificent  thing  manna  would  be  for  the  currency,  shrinking  and  swel- 
ling according  to  the  volume  of  business !  There  was  not  a  change  in  the 
bill  of  fare  for  forty  years,  and  they  knew  that  God  could  just  as  well  give 
them  three  square  meals  a  day.  They  remembered  about  the  cucumbers, 
and  the  melons,  and  the  leeks  and  the  onions  of  Egypt,  and  they  said: 
"  Our  souls  abhoreth  this  light  bread."  Then  this  God  got  mad — you 
know  cooks  are  always  touchy — and  thereupon  He  sent  snakes  to  bite 
the  men,  women  and  children.  He  also  sent  them  quails  in  wrath  and 
anger,  and  while  they  had  the  flesh  between  their  teeth,  He  struck 
thouscnds  of  them  dead.  He  always  acted  in  that  way,  all  of  a  sudden. 
People  had  no  chance  to  explain — no  chance  to  move  for  a  new  trial — 
nothing.  I  want  to  know  if  it  is  reasonable  he  should  kill  people  for 
asking  for  one  change  of  diet  in  forty  years.  Suppose  you  had  been 
boarding  with  an  old  lady  for  forty  years,  and  she  never  had  a  solitary 
thing  on  her  table  but  hash,  and  one  morning  you  said :  "  My  soul  abhor- 
eth hash.  "  What  would  you  say  if  she  let  a  basketful  of  rattlesnakes 
upon  you?  Now  is  it  possible  for  people  to  believe  this?  The  Bible 
says  that  their  clothes  .did  not  wax  old,  they  did  not  get  shiny  at  the 
knees  or  elbows;  and  their  shoes  did  not  wear  out.  They  grew  right 
along  with  them.  The  little  boy  starting  out  with  hi*  first  pant*  grew 
up  and  his  pants  grew  with  him.  Some  commentators  have  insisted  that 
angels  attended  to  their  wardrobes.  I  never  could  believe  it.  Just  think 
of  one  angel  hunting  another  and  saying:  "  There  goes  another  button." 
I  cannot  believe  it. 

There  must  be  a  mistake  somewhere  or  somehow.  Do  you  believe 
the  real  God — if  there  is  one — ever  killed  a  man  for  making  hair-oil? 
And  yet  you  find  in  the  Pentateuch  that  God  gave  Moses  a  recipe  for 
making  hair-oil  to  grease  Aaron's  beard;  and  said  if  anybody  made  the 
same  hair- oil  he  should  be  killed.  And  He  gave  him  a  formula  for 
making  ointment,  and  He  said  if  anybody  made  ointment  like  that  he 
should  be  killed.  I  think  that  is  carrying  patent-laws  to  excess.  There 
must  be  some  mistake  about  it.  I  cannot  imagine  the  infinite  Creator 
of  all  the  shining  worlds  giving  a  recipe  for  hair-oil.  Do  you  believe 
that  the  real  God  came  down  to  Mount  Sinai  with  a  lot  of  patterns  for 
making  a  tabernacle — patterns  for  tongs,  for  snuffers,  and  such  things  ? 
Do  you  believe  that  God  came  down  on  that  mountain  and  told  Moses^ 
how  to  cut  a  coat,  and  how  it  should  be  trimmed?  What  would  an  infi- 
nite God  care  on  which  side  he  cut  the  breast,  what  color  the  fringe  was, 
or  how  the  buttons  were  placed?  Do  you  believe  God  told  Moses  to 


1 10  MISTAKES  OF  1NG1  RSOLL. 

make  curtain*  /f  fine  linen?  Where  did  they  get  their  flax  in  the  dea- 
ert?  How  di&  they  weave  it?  Did  He  tell  him  to  make  things  of  gold, 
•ilver  and  prectous  stones,  when  they  hadn't  them?  Is  it  possible  that 
God  told  them  not  to  eat  any  fruit  until  after  the  fourth  year  of  planting 
the  trees?  You  see  all  these  things  were  written  hundreds  of  years  after- 
wards, and  the  pr  "jsts,  in  order  to  collect  the  tithes,  dated  the  laws  back. 
They  did  not  saj ,  "  This  is  our  law,"  but,  "  Thus  said  God  to  Moses  in 
the  wilderness."  Now,  can  you  believe  that?  Imagine  a  scene:  The 
eternal  God  tells  Moses,  "  Here  is  the  way  I  want  you  to  consecrate  my 
priests.  Catch  a  sheep  and  cut  his  throat."  I  never  could  understand 
why  God  wanted  a  sheep  killed  just  because  a  man  had  done  a  mean 
trick;  perhaps  it  was  because  his  priests  were  fond  of  mutton.  He  tells 
Moses  further  to  take  some  of  the  blood  and  put  it  on  his  right  thumb,  a 
little  on  his  right  ear,  and  a  little  on  his  right  big  toe?  Do  you  believe 
God  ever  gave  such  instructions  for  the  consecration  of  His  priests  ?  If 
you  should  see  the  South  Sea  Islanders  going  through  such  a  perform- 
ance you  could  not  keep  your  face  straight.  And  will  you  tell  me  that  it 
had  to  be  done  ia  order  to  consecrate  a  man  to  the  service  of  the  infinite 
God?  Supposing  the  blood  got  on  the  left  toe? 

Then  we  find  in  hi*  book  how  God  went  to  work  to  make  the  Egyp- 
tians let  the  Israelites  go.  Suppose  we  wish  to  make  a  treaty  with  th>" 
mikado  of  Japan,  and  Mr.  Hayes  sent  a  commissioner  there;  and  suppose 
he  should  employ  Hermann,  the  wonderful  German,  to  go  along  with 
him;  and  when  they  came  in  the  presence  of  the  mikado  Hermann  threw 
down  an  umbrella,  which  changed  into  a  turtle,  and  the  commissioner 
said:  "  That  is  my  certificate."  You  would  say  the  country  is  disgraced. 
You  would  say  the  president  of  a  republic  like  this  disgraces  himself  with 
jugglery.  Yet  we  are  told  God  sent  Moses  and  Aaron  before  Pharaoh, 
and  when  they  got  there  Moses  threw  down  a  stick  which  turned  into  a 
snake.  That  God  is  a  juggler — he  is  the  infinite  prestidigitator.  Is  that 
possible?  Was  that  really  a  snake,  or  was  it  the  appearance  of  a  snake? 
If  it  was  the  appearance  of  a  snake,  it  was  a  fraud.  Then  the  necroman- 
cers of  Egypt  were  sent  for,  and  they  threw  down  sticks,  which  turned 
into  snakes,  but  those  were  not  so  large  as  Moses'  snakes,  which  swal- 
lowed them.  I  maintain  that  it  is  just  as  hard  to  make  small  snakes  as 
it  is  to  make  large  ones;  the  only  difference  is  that  to  make  large  snakes 
eithei  larger  sticks  or  more  practice  is  required. 

Do  you  believe  that  God  rained  hail  on  the  innocent  cattle,  killing  them 
in  the  highways  and  in  the  field?  Why  should  he  inflict  punishment  on 
cattle  for  something  their  owners  had  done?  I  could  never  have  any 
respect  for  a  God  that  would  so  inflict  pain  upon  a  brute  beast  simply  on 
vxount  of  the  crime  of  its  owner.  Is  it  possible  thut  God  worked  luira- 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  Ill 

eles  to  convince  Pharaoh  that  slavery  was  wrong?  Why  dM  he  not  tell 
Pharaoh  that  any  nation  founded  on  slavery  could  not  stand?  Why  did  he 
not  tell  him,  "  Your  government  is  founded  on  slavery,  and  it  vill  go  down, 
and  the  sands  of  the  desert  will  hide  from  the  view  of  man  yf-ur  temples, 
your  altars,  and  your  fanes?  "  Why  did  he  not  speak  about  the  infamy 
of  slavery?  Because  he  believed  in  the  infamy  of  slavery  himself.  Can 
we  believe  that  God  will  allow  a  man  to  give  his  wife  the  right  of  divorce- 
ment and  make  the  mother  of  his  children  a  wanderer  and  a  vagrant. 
There  is  not  one  word  about  woman  in  the  Old  Testament  except  the  word 
of  shame  and  humiliation.  The  God  of  the  Bible  does  not  thuik  woman 
is  as  good  as  man.  She  was  never  worth  mentioning.  It  did  not  take 
the  pains  to  recount  the  death  of  the  mother  of  us  all.  I  have  no  respect 
for  any  book  that  does  not  treat  woman  as  the  equal  of  mav.  And  if 
there  is  any  God  in  this  universe  who  thinks  more  of  me  than  he  thinks 
of  my  wife,  he  is  not  well  acquainted  with  both  of  us.  And  yet  they  say 
that  that  was  done  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts ;  an4  that  was 
done  in  a  community  where  the  law  was  so  fierce  that  it  stoned  a  man  to 
death  for  picking  up  sticks  on  Sunday.  Would  it  not  have  be«n  better 
to  stone  to  death  every  man  who  abused  his  wife  and  allowed  them  to 
pick  up  sticks  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts  ?  If  God  wanted 
to  take  those  Jews  from  Egypt  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  why  didn't  He  do 
it  instantly?  If  He  was  going  to  do  a  miracle,  why  didn't  He  do  one 
worth  talking  about? 

After  God  had  killed  all  the  first-born  in  Egypt,  after  he  had  killed  all 
the  cattle,  still  Egypt  could  raise  an  army  that  could  put  to  flight  nix  hun- 
dred thousand  men.  And  because  this  God  overwhelmed  the  Egyptian 
army,  he  bragged  about  it  for  a  thousand  years,  repeatedly  calling  the 
attention  of  the  Jews  to  the  fact  that  he  overthrew  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts. 
Did  he  help  much  with  their  six  hundred  thousand  men?  We  find  by  the 
records  of  the  day  that  the  Egyptian  standing  army  at  that  time  was 
never  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  men.  Must  we  believe  all  these 
stories  in  order  to  get  to  Heaven  when  we  die  ?  Must  we  judge  of  a  man's 
character  by  the  number  of  stories  he  believes?  Are  we  to  get  to  Heaven 
by  creed  or  by  deed?  That  is  the  question.  Shall  we  reason,  or  shall  we 
rimply  believe?  Ah,  but  they  say  the  Bible  is  not  inspired  about  those 
little  things.  The  Bible  says  the  rabbit  and  the  hare  chew  the  cud.  But 
they  do  not.  They  have  a  tremulous  motion  of  the  lip.  But  the  Baing 
that  made  them  says  they  chew  the  cud.  The  Bible,  therefore,  is  not 
inspired  in  natural  history.  Is  it  inspired  in  its  astrology?  No.  "Well, 
what  is  it  inspired  in?  In  its  law?  Thousands  of  people  say  that  i/  it 
had  not  been  for  the  ten  commandments  we  would  not  have  known  ?*»y 
better  than  to  rob  and  steal.  Suppose  a  man  planted  an  acre  of  potato*«s 


112  AtiSTAKKS  Of  1XGEKSOLL. 

hoed  them  all  summer,  and  dug  them  in  the  fall ;  and  suppose  a  man  had 
•at  upon  the  fence  all  the  time  and  watehed  him;  do  you  believe  it  would 
be  necessary  for  that  man  to  read  the  ten  commandments  to  find  out  who, 
in  his  judgment,  had  a  right  to  take  those  potatoes  ?  All  laws  against 
larceny  have  been  made  by  industry  to  protect  the  fruits  of  its  labor. 
Why  is  there  a  law  against  murder?  Simply  because  a  large  majority  of 
people  object  to  being  murdered.  That  is  all.  And  all  these  laws  were 
in  force  thousands  of  years  before  that  time. 

One  of  the  commandments  said  they  should  not  make  any  graven 
images,  and  that  was  the  death  of  art  in  Palestine.  No  sculptor  has 
ever  enriched  stone  with  the  divine  forms  of  beauty  in  that  country;  and 
any  commandment  that  is  the  death  of  art  is  not  a  good  commandment. 
But  they  say  the  Bible  is  morally  inspired;  and  they  tell  me  there  is  no 
civilization  without  this  Bible.  Then  God  knows  that  just  as  well  as  you 
do.  God  always  knew  it,  and  if  you  can't  civilize  a  nation  without  a 
Bible,  why  didn't  God  give  every  nation  just  one  Bible  to  start  with? 
Why  did  God  allow  hundreds  of  thousands  and  billions  of  billions  to  go 
down  to  hell  just  for  the  lack  of  a  Bible?  They  say  that  it  is  morally  in- 
•pired.  Well,  let  us  examine  it.  I  want  to  be  fair  about  this  thing,  be- 
cause I  am  willing  to  stake  my  salvation  or  damnation  upon  this  ques- 
tion— whether  the  Bible  is  true  or  not.  I  say  it  is  not;  and  upon  that  I 
am  willing  to  wager  my  soul.  Is  there  a  woman  here  who  believes  in  the 
institution  of  polygamy?  Is  there  a  man  here  who  believes  in  that  in- 
famy? You  say:  "No,  we  do  not."  Then  you  are  better  than  your 
God  was  four  thousand  years  ago.  Four  thousand  years  ago  he  believed 
in  it,  taught  it  and  upheld  it.  I  pronounce  it  and  denounce  it  the  infa- 
my of  infamies.  It  robs  our  language  of  every  sweet  and  tender  Vord 
in  it.  It  takes  the  fireside  away  forever.  It  takes  the  meaning  out  of  the 
words  father,  mother,  sister,  brother,  and  turns  the  temple  of  love  into 
a  vile  den  where  crawl  the  slimy  snakes  of  lust  and  hatred.  I  was  in 
Utah  a  little  while  ago,  and  was  on  the  mountain  where  God  used  to  talk 
to  Brigham  Young.  He  never  said  anything  to  me.  I  said  it  was  just  as 
reasonable  that  God  in  the  nineteenth  century  should  talk  to  a  polygamist 
in  Utah  as  it  was  that  four  thousand  years  ago,  on  Mount  Sinai,  he  talked 
to  Moses  upon  that  hellish  and  damnable  question. 

I  have  no  love  for  any  God  who  believes  in  polygamy.  There  is  no 
heaven  on  this  earth  save  where  the  one  woman  loves  the  one  man  anj1 
the  one  man  loves  the  one  woman.  I  guess  it  is  not  inspired  on  thft 
polygamy  question.  Maybe  it  is  inspired  about  religious  liberty.  God 
says  that  if  anybody  diflers  with  you  about  religion,  "kill  him."  He 
told  His  peculiar  people,  "  If  any  one  teaches  a  different  religion,  kill 
him!  "  He  did  not  say,  "Try  and  convince  him  that  he  is  wrong,"  but 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  113 

"kill  him!"  He  did  not  say,  "  I  am  in  the  miracle  business,  and  I  will 
convince  him;"  but "  kill  him."  He  said  to  every  husband,  "If  your  wife, 
that  you  love  as  you  love  your  own  soul,  says,  '  let  us  go  and  worship 
other  gods,'  then  '  thy  hand  shall  be  first  upon  her  and  she  shall  be 
stoned  with  stones  until  she  dies. '  "  Well,  now,  I  hate  a  God  of  that  kind, 
and  I  cannot  think  of  being  nearer  heaven  than  to  be  away  from  Him.  A 
God  tells  a  man  to  kill  his  wife  simply  because  she  differs  with  him  on 
religion!  If  the  real  God  were  to  tell  me  to  kill  my  wife,  I  would  not  do 
it.  If  you  had  lived  in  Palestine  at  that  time,  and  your  wife — the  mother  of 
your  children — had  woke  up  at  night  and  said:  "  I  am  tired  of  Jehovah. 
He  is  always  turning  up  that  board-bill.  He  is  always  telling  about 
whipping  the  Egyptians.  He  is  always  killing  somebody.  I  am  tired  of 
Him.  Let  us  worship  the  sun.  The  sun  has  clothed  the  world  in  beauty; 
it  has  covered  the  earth  with  green  and  flowers;  by  its  divine  light  I  first 
saw  your  face;  its  light  has  enabled  me  to  look  into  the  eyes  of  my  beautiful 
babe.  Let  us  worship  the  sun,  father  and  mother  of  light  and  love  and 
joy."  Then  what  would  it  be  your  duty  to  do — kill  her?  Do  you  be- 
lieve any  real  god  ever  did  that?  Your  hand  should  be  first  upon  her, 
and  when  you  took  up  some  ragged  rock  and  hurled  it  against  the  white 
bosom  filled  with  love  for  you,  and  saw  running  away  the  red  current  of 
her  sweet  life,  then  you  would  look  up  to  heaven  and  receive  the  con- 
gratulations of  the  infinite  fiend  whose  commandments  you  had  to  obey. 
I  guess  the  Bible  was  not  inspired  about  religious  liberty.  Let  me  ask 
you  right  here:  Suppose,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  God  gave  those  laws  to  the 
Jews  and  told  them  "  whenever  a  man  preaches  a  different  religion,  kill 
him,"  and  suppose  that  afterwards  the  same  God  took  upon  himself 
flesh,  and  came  to  the  world  and  taught  and  preached  a  different  re- 
ligion, and  the  Jews  crucified  him — did  he  not  reap  exactly  what  he 
sowed? 

May  be  this  book  is  inspired  about  war.  God  told  the  'Israelites  to 
overrun  that  country,  and  kill  every  man,  woman  and  child  for  defending 
their  native  land.  Kill  the  old  men  ?  Yes.  Kill  the  women?  Certainly. 
And  the  little  dimpled  babes  in  the  cradle,  that  smile  and  coo  in  the  face 
of  murder — dash  out  their  brains;  that  is  the  will  of  God.  Will  you  tell 
me  that  any  god  ever  commanded  such  infamy?  Kill  the  men  and  the 
women,  and  the  young  men  and  the  babes!  "What  shall  we  do  with 
the  maidens?"  "  Give  them  to  the  rabbJe  murderers!"  Do  you  believe 
that  God  ever  allowed  the  roses  of  love  and  the  violets  of  modesty  that 
shed  their  perfume  in  the  heart  of  a  maiden  to  be  trampled  beneath  the 
brutal  feet  of  lust?  If  there  is  any  God,  I  pray  him  to  write  in  the  book 
of  eternal  remembrance  opposite  to  my  name,  that  I  denied  that  lie. 
Whenever  a  woman  reads  a  Bible  and  comes  to  that  passage,  she  ought 
8 


114  MISTAKES  OF  1NGEKSOLL. 

to  throw  the  book  from  her  in  contempt  and  scorn.  Do  you  tell  me  that 
any  decent  god  would  do  that?  What  would  the  devil  have  done  under 
the  same  circumstances?  Just  think  of  it;  and  yet  that  is  the  God  that 
we  want  to  get  into  the  Constitution.  That  is  the  God  we  teach  our 
children  about,  so  tha*  iV«y  will  be  sweet  and  tender,  amiable  and  kind? 
That  monster — that  fi  I  guess  the  Bible  is  not  inspired  about  relig- 

ious liberty,  nor  about  vmr. 

Then,  if  it  is  not  inspired  about  these  things,  maybe  it  is  inspired 
about  slavery.  God  tells  the  Jews  to  buy  up  the  children  of  the  heathen 
round  about  and  they  should  be  servants  for  them.  What  is  a  "  ser- 
vant? "  If  they  struck  a  "  servant  "  and  he  died  immediately,  punish- 
ment was  to  follow;  but  if  the  injured  man  should  linger  a  while,  there 
was  no  punishment,  because  the  servant  represented  their  money!  Do 
you  believe  that  it  is  right — that  God  made  one  man  to  work  for  anothex 
and  to  receive  pay  in  rations  ?  Do  you  believe  God  said  that  a  whip  on 
the  naked  back  was  the  legal  tender  for  labor  performed?  Is  it  possible 
that  the  real  God  ever  gave  such  infamous,  blood-thirsty  laws?  What 
more  does  he  say?  When  the  time  of  a  married  slave  expired,  he  could 
not  take  his  wife  and  children  with  him.  Then  if  the  slave  did  not  wish 
to  desert  his  family,  he  had  his  ears  pierced  with  an  awl,  and  became  his 
master's  property  forever.  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  turned  the 
dimpled  cheeks  of  little  children  into  iron  chains  to  hold  a  man  in  slave- 
ry? Do  you  know  that  a  God  like  that  would  not  make  a  respectable 
devil?  I  want  none  of  his  mercy.  I  want  no  part  and  no  lot  in  the 
heaven  of  such  a  God.  I  will  go  to  (perdition,  where  there  is  human 
sympathy.  The  only  voice  we  have  ever  had  from  either  of  those  other 
worlds  came  from  hell.  There  was  a  rich  man  who  prayed  his  brothers 
to  attend  to  Lazarus  so  that  they  might  "  not  come  to  this  place."  That 
is  the  only  instance,  %o  far  as  we  know,  of  souls  across  the  river  having 
any  sympathy.  And  I  would  rather  be  in  hell,  asking  for  water,  than  in 
heaven  denying  that  petition.  Well,  what  is  this  book  inspired  about? 
Where  does  the  inspiration  come  from  ?  Why  was  it  that  so  many  ani- 
mals were  killed  ?  It  was  simply  to  make  atonement  for  man — that  is  all. 
They  killed  something  that  had  not  committed  a  crime,  in  order  that  the 
one  who  had  committed  the  crime  might  be  acquitted.  Based  upon  that 
idea,  is  the  atonement  of  the  Christian  religion.  That  is  the  reason  I 
attack  this  book — because  it  is  the  basis  of  another  infamy,  viz :  that  one 
man  can  be  good  for  another,  or  that  one  man  can  sin  for  another.  I 
deny  it.  You  have  got  to  be  good  for  yourself ;  you  have  got  to  sin  for 
yourself.  The  trouble  about  the  atonement  is,  that  it  saves  the  wrong 
man.  For  instance,  I  kill  some  one.  He  is  a  good  man.  He  loves  his 
wife  and  children  and  tries  to  make  them  happy;  but  he  is  not  a  Chris- 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  116 

tian,  and  he  goes  to  hell.  Just  as  soon  as  I  am  convicted  and  cannot  get 
a  pardon  I  get  religion,  and  I  go  to  heaven.  The  hand  of  mercy  cannot 
reach  down  through  the  shadows  of  hell  to  my  victim. 

There  ia  no  atonement  for  the  saint — only  for  the  sinner  and  the  crim- 
inal. The  atonement  saves  the  wrong  man.  I  have  said  that  I  would 
never  make  a  lecture  at  all  without  attacking  this  doctrine.  I  did  not 
care  what  I  started  out  on.  I  was  always  going  to  attack  this  doctrine. 
And  in  my  conclusion  I  want  to  draw  you  a  few  pictures  of  the  Christian 
heaven.  But  before  I  do  that  I  want  to  say  the  rest  I  have  to  say  about 
Moses.  I  want  you  to  understand  that  the  Bible  was  never  printed  until 
1488.  I  want  you  to  know  that  up  to  that  time  it  was  in  manuscript,  in 
possession  of  those  who  could  change  it  if  they  wished;  and  they  did 
change  it,  because  no  two  ever  agreed.  Much  of  it  was  in  the  waste  bas- 
ket of  credulity,  in  the  open  mouth  of  tradition,  and  in  the  dull  ear  of 
memory.  I  want  you  also  to  know  that  the  Jews  themselves  never  agreed 
as  to  what  books  were  inspired,  and  that  there  were  a  lot  of  books  written 
that  were  not  incorporated  in  the  Old  Testament.  I  want  you  to  know 
that  two  or  three  years  before  Christ,  the  Hebrew  manuscript  was  trans- 
lated into  Greek,  and  that  the  original  from  which  the  translation  was 
made  has  never  been  seen  since.  Some  Latin  Bibles  were  found  in  Africa 
but  no  two  agreed;  and  then  they  translated  the  Septuagint  into  the  lan- 
guages of  Europe,  and  no  two  agreed.  Henry  VIII.  took  a  little  time 
between  murdering  his  wives  to  see  that  the  Word  of  God  was  translated 
sorrectly.  You  must  recollect  that  we  are  indebted  to  murderers  for  our 
Bibles  and  our  creeds.  Constantino,  who  helped  on  the  good  work  in  its 
early  stage,  murdered  his  wife  and  child,  mingling  their  blood  with  the 
blood  of  the  Savior. 

The  Bible  that  Henry  VIII.  got  up  did  not  suit,  and  then  his  daughter, 
the  murderess  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scotts,  got  up  another  edition,  which  also 
did  not  suit;  and  finally,  that  philosophical  idiot,  King  James,  prepared 
the  edition  which  we  now  have.  There  are  at  least  one  hundred  thousand 
errors  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  everybody  sees  that  it  is  not  enough  to 
invalidate  its  claim  to  infallibility.  But  these  errors  are  gradually  being 
faed,  and  hereafter  the  prophet  will  be  fed  by  Arabs  instead  of  "ravens,'* 
and  Samson's  three  hundred  foxes  will  be  three  hundred  "sheaves" 
already  bound,  which  were  fired  and  thrown  into  the  standing  wheat.  I 
want  you  all  to  know  that  there  was  no  contemporaneous  literature  at  the 
time  the  Bible  was  composed,  and  that  the  Jews  were  infinitely  ignorant 
m  their  day  and  generation — that  they  were  isolated  by  bigotry  and  wick- 
edness from  the  rest  of  the  world.  I  want  you  to  know  that  there  are 
fourteen  hundred  millions  of  people  in  the  world;  and  that  with  all  the 
talk  and  work  of  the  societies,  only  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  haw* 


118  MISTAKES  OF  IXGERSOLL. 

pot  Bibles.  1  want  you  to  understand  that  not  one  person  in  one  hundred 
in  thia  world  ever  read  the  Bible,  and  no  two  ever  understood  it  alike  who 
did  read  it,  and  that  no  one  person  probably  ever  understood  it  aright. 
1  want  you  to  understand  that  where  this  Bible  has  been,  man  has  hated 
his  brother — there  have  been  dungeons,  racks,  thumbscrews,  and  the 
sword.  I  want  you  to  know  that  the  cross  has  been  in  partnership  with 
the  sword,  and  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  was  established  by  mur- 
derers, tyrants  and  hypocrites.  I  want  you  to  know  that  the  church 
carried  the  black  flag.  Then  talk  about  the  civilizing  influence  of  thi* 
religion ! 

Now,  I  want  to  give  an  idea  or  two  in  regard  to  the  Christian's  heaven. 
Of  all  the  selfish  tilings  in  this  world,  it  is  one  man  wanting  to  get  to 
heaven,  caring  nothing  what  becomes  of  the  rest  of  mankind.  "  If  I 
can  only  get  my  little  soul  in!  "  I  have  always  noticed  that  the  people 
who  have  the  smallest  souls  make  the  mostfuss  about  getting  them  saved. 
Here  is  what  we  are  taught  by  the  church  to-day.  We  are  taught  by  it 
that  fathers  and  mothers,  brothers  and  sisters  can  all  be  happy  in  heaven, 
uo  matter  who  may  be  in  hell;  that  the  husband  can  be  happy  there 
with  the  wife  that  would  have  died  for  him  at  any  moment  of  his  life  in 
hell.  But  they  say,  "  We  don't  believe  in  fire.  What  we  believe  in  now 
is  remorse."  What  will  you  have  remorse  for?  For  the  mean  things 
you  have  done  when  you  are  in  hell?  Will  you  have  any  remorse  for  the 
mean  things  you  have  done  when  you  are  in  heaven?  Or  will  you  be  so 
good  then  that  you  won't  care  how  you  used  to  be?  Do  n't  you  see  what 
an  infinitely  mean  belief  that  is?  I  tell  you  to-day  that,  no  matter  in 
what  heaven  you  may  be,  no  matter  in  what  star  you  are  spending 
the  summer,  if  you  meet  another  man  whom  you  have  wronged  you 
will  drop  a  little  behind  in  the  tune.  And,  no  matter  in  what  part 
of  hell  you  are,  and  you  meet  some  one  whom  you  have  succored,  whose 
nakedness  you  have  clothed,  and  whose  famine  you  have  fed,  the  fire  will 
cool  up  a  little.  According  to  this  Christian  doctrine,  when  yon  are  in 
heaven  you  won't  care  how  mean  you  were  once.  What  must  be  the 
social  condition  of  a  gentleman  in  heaven  who  will  admit  that  he  never 
would  have  been  there  if  he  had  not  got  scared  ?  What  must  be  the 
•ocial  position  of  an  angel  who  will  always  admit  that  if  another  had  not 
pitied  him  he  ought  to  have  been  damned?  Is  it  a  compliment  to  an  infi- 
nite God  to  say  that  every  being  He  ever  made  deserved  to  be  damned 
the  minute  He  got  him  done,  and  that  He  will  damn  everybody  He  has 
not  had  a  chance  to  make  over?  Is  it  possible  that  somebody  else  can  be 
good  for  me,  and  that  this  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  the  only  anchor 
for  the  human  soul  ? 

For  instance:  here  is  a  man  seventy  years  of  age,  who  has  been  t 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  117 

splendid  fellow  and  lived  according  to  the  laws  of  nature.  He  has  got 
about  him  splendid  children,  whom  he  has  loved  and  cared  for  with  all 
hit  heart.  But  he  did  not  happen  to  believe  in  this  Bible;  he  did  not 
believe  in  the  Pentateuch.  He  did  not  believe  that  because  some  child- 
'ren  made  fun  of  a  gentleman  who  was  short  of  hair,  God  sent  two  bears 
and  tore  the  little  darlings  to  pieces.  He  had  a  tender  heart,  and  ha 
thought  about  the  mothers  who  would  take  the  pieces,  the  bloody  frag- 
ments of  the  children,  and  press  them  to  their  bosom  in  a  frenzy  of  grief ; 
he  thought  about  their  wails  and  lamentations,  and  could  not  believe 
that  God  was  such  an  infinite  monster.  That  was  all  he  thought,  but  he 
went  to  Hell.  Then,  there  is  another  man  who  made  a  hell  on  earth  for 
his  wife,  who  had  to  be  taken  to  the  insane  asylum,  and  his  children 
were  driven  from  home  and  were  wanderers  and  vagrants  in  the  world. 
But  just  between  the  last  sin  and  the  last  breath,  this  fellow  got  religion, 
and  he  never  did  another  thing  except  to  take  his  medicine.  He  never 
did  a  solitary  human  being  a  favor,  and  he  died  and  went  to  heaven. 
Do  n't  you  think  he  would  be  astonished  to  see  that  other  man  in  hell, 
and  say  to  himself,  "  Is  it  possible  that  such  a  splendid  character  should 
bear  such  fruit,  and  that  all  my  rascality  at  last  has  brought  me  next  to 
God?" 

Or,  let  us  put  another  ease.  You  were  once  alone  in  the  desert — no 
provisions,  no  water,  no  hope.  Just  when  your  life  was  at  its  lowest  ebb, 
a  man  appeared,  gave  you  water  and  food  and  brought  you  safely  out. 
How  you  would  bless  that  man.  Time  rolls  on.  You  die  and  go  to 
heaven;  and  one  day  you  see  through  the  black  night  of  hell,  the  friend 
who  saved  your  life,  begging  for  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  parched  lips. 
He  cries  to  you,  "  Remember  what  I  did  in  the  desert — give  me  to  drink." 
How  mean,  how  contemptible  you  would  feel  to  see  his  suffering  and  be 
unable  to  relieve  him.  But  this  is  the  Christian  heaven.  We  sit  by  the 
fireside  and  see  the  flames  and  the  sparks  fly  np  the  chimney — everybody 
happy,  and  the  cold  wind  and  sleet  are  beating  on  the  window,  and  out 
on  the  doorstep  is  a  mother  with  a  child  on  her  breast  freezing.  How 
happy  it  makes  a  fireside,  that  beautiful  contrast.  And  we  say  "God  is 
good,"  and  there  we  sit,  and  she  sits  and  moans,  not  one  night  but  for- 
ever. Or  we  are  sitting  at  the  table  with  our  wives  and  children,  every- 
body eating,  happy  and  delighted,  and  Famine  comes  and  pushes  out  its 
shriveled  palms,  and,  with  hungry  eyes,  implores  us  for  a  crust.  How 
that  would  increase  the  appetite!  And  yet  that  is  the  Christian  heaven. 
Don't  you  see  that  these  infamous  doctrines  petrify  the  human  heart? 
And  I  would  have  every  one  who  hears  me,  swear  that  he  will  never  con- 
tribute another  dollar  to  build  another  church,  in  which  is  taught  such 
infamous  lies.  I  want  every  one  of  you  to  say  that  you  never  will,  direct- 


118  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

ly  or  indirectly,  give  a  dollar  to  any  man  to  preach  that  falsehood.  It 
has  done  harm  enough.  It  has  covered  the  world  with  blood.  It  nan 
filled  the  asylums  for  the  insane.  It  has  cast  a  shadow  in  the  heart,  in 
the  sunlight  of  every  good  and  tender  man  and  woman.  I  say  let  OB  rid 
the  heavens  of  this  monster,  and  writ*  upon  the  dome  "  Liberty,  lore 
and  law." 

No  matter  what  may  come  to  me  or  what  may  come  to  you,  let  us  do 
exactly  what  we  believe  to  be  right,  and  let  us  give  the  exact  thought  in 
our  brains.  Rather  than  have  this  Christianity  true,  I  would  rather  all 
the  gods  would  destroy  themselves  this  morning.  I  would  rather  the 
whole  universe  would  go  to  nothing,  if  snch  a  thing  were  possible,  thi« 
instant.  Rather  than  have  the  glittering  dome  of  pleasure  reared  on  the 
«ternal  abyss  of  pain,  I  would  see  the  utter  *nd  eternal  destruction  of  this 
universe.  I  would  rather  see  the  shining  fabric  of  our  universe  crumble 
to  unmeaning  chao»,  and  take  itself  where  oblivion  broods  and  memory 
forgeta.  I  would  rather  the  blind  Samson  of  some  imprisoned  force,  re- 
leased by  thoughtless  chance,  should  so  rack  and  strain  this  world  that 
man  in  stress  and  straint.  in  astonishment  and  fear,  should  suddenly  fall 
back  to  savagery  and  barbarity.  I  would  rather  that  this  thrilled  and 
thrilling  globe,  shorn  of  all  life,  should  in  its  cycles  rub  the  wheel,  the 
parent  s.ar,  on  which  the  light  should  fall  as  fruitlessly  as  falls  the  gaze 
of  love  on  death,  than  to  have  this  infamous  doctrine  of  eternal  punish- 
ment true;  rather  than  have  this  infamous  selfishness  of  a  heaven  for  a 
few  and  a  hell  for  the  many  established  as  the  word  of  God! 

One  world  at  a  time  is  my  doctrine.  Let  u?  make  some  one  happy 
here.  Happiness  is  the  interest  that  a  decent  action  draws,  and  the  more 
decent  actions  you  do,  the  larger  your  income  wi)l  be.  Let  every  man 
try  to  make  his  wife  happy,  his  children  happy.  Let  every  man  try  to 
make  every  day  a  joy,  and  God  cannot  aflbrd  to  damn  such  a  man.  I 
cannot  help  God;  1  cannot  injure  God.  I  can  help  people;  I  can  injure 
people.  Consequently  humanity  is  the  only  real  religion. 

I  cannot  better  close  this  lecture  than  by  quoting  four  lines  from 
Robert  Burns: 

••  To  make  a  happy  fireside  clime 

To  weans  and  wife — 
That'i  the  true  pathos  and  lublim* 
Of  human  life." 


JB&E  a.  BLAOK'8  KEPLT. 


JUDGE  JERE  S.  BLACK'S  REPLY  TO  COL. 


This  is  no  personal  wrangle  with  Mr.  Ingersoll.  He 
has  said  nothing  offensive  about  me. 

His  indignation  at  finding  himself  confronted,  not  by  a 
professional  theologian,  but  by  a  layman  who  applied  the 
judicial  test  to  his  assertions,  was  natural  and  expressed 
with  tolerable  moderation.  On  the  other  hand,  I  tried,  and 
I  think  I  tried  successfully,  to  confine  myself  rigidly  to  the 
square  issue  between  us. 

A  just  or  even  an  intelligent  criticism,  could  not  be 
made  wi thout  some  reference  to  his  mental  peculiarities, 
which,  with  habits  of  shallow  thinking  and  rash  talking, 
made  him  an  utterly  incompetent  judge  of  the  subject  he 
pretended  to  argue.  But  I  found  the  proofs  of  this  within 
the  four  corners  of  his  own  paper.  There,  also,  I  learned 
that  he  was  without  any  acknowledged  standard  of  right 
or  wrong.  It  was  legitimate  to  notice  that,  because  it  ac- 
counted satisfactorily  for  his  other  utterances. 

Neither  is  there  any  question  of  partisan  politics  be- 
tween us.  I  have  certain  political  convictions,  which  you 
may  call  prejudices  if  you  will.  But  whether  they  are 
well  or  ill-founded,  they  have  no  manner  of  just  con  nee- 


120  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

tion  with  the  subject  matter  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  diatribe 
against  Christianity. 

I  believe,  and  have  often  expressed  the  belief,  that  re- 
ligion and  politics  cannot  be  mingled  together  without  en- 
dangering both.  The  most  perfect  system  of  human  gov- 
ernment that  ever  was  invented  by  the  wit  of  man,  and  the 
holiest  religion  that  God  has  revealed  to  His  creatures, 
when  united  together,  form  a  monstrous  compound  highly 
injurious  to  the  best  interests  of  the  human  race.  Such 
a  union  is  pronounced  by  Christ  and  His  apostles  to  be 
impure,  and  the  fathers  of  this  Republic  so  shaped  their 
fundamental  law  as  to  make  it  a  wall  of  perfect  partition 
between  them.  Without  such  complete  separation  there 
can  be  no  security  for  either  civil  liberty  or  the  rights  of 
conscience  in  matters  of  religion.  The  worst  form  of  this 
adulterous  connection  is  not  assumed  when  a  legal  union 
is  formed  between  Church  and  State.  It  is  when  a  popular 
party  in  a  free  government  undertakes  to  mingle  its  coarse 
interests  and  its  vulgar  passions  with  the  religious  senti- 
ments of  the  people.  That  is  what  pollutes  and  falsifies 
both. 

The  history  of  the  world,  and  especially  that  of  our  own 
country,  has  been  written  in  vain  if  this  be  not  the  lesson 
it  teaches.  These  convictions  not  only  disarm  me  of  the 
power  to  repel  Mr.  Ingersoll's  assaults  by  a  political  argu- 
ment, but  force  me  to  admit  for  the  purposes  of  this  case 
that  he  is  right  on  all  the  points  of  that  kind  which  he 
chooses  to  lug  in.  lean  do  that,  argumenti  gratia,  without 
affecting  the  real  question  in  controversy. 

He  thought  he  was  striking  a  powerful  blow  at  the  Al- 
mighty when  he  showed  that  the  Jewish  Constitution  con- 
tained a  provision  which  conflicted  with  the  platform  of 
the  Abolitionists.  They  had  determined  and  resolved  that 


JERE  8.  SLACK'S  REPLY.  121 

under  all  circumstances,  at  all  times,  and  everywhere,  the 
toleration  of  slavery  or  servitude  for  life  was  a  crime.  By 
this  and  by  other  means  not  now  to  be  described  they  got 
money,  power,  and  great  personal  consequence  for  them- 
selves and  their  fellows. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  could  trust  them  to  unite  with  him  in 
howling  down  Christianity  or  anything  else  that  dimin- 
ished the  profits  of  their  business.  Directly  before  him 
he  had  the  successful  example  of  Demetrius,  the  silver- 
smith, who  raised  a  tremendous  uproar  against  the  Gospel 
of  Christ  by  simply  bellowing  out  :  "  Great  is  Diana  of 
the  Ephesians."  "  Sirs,  you  know  that  by  this  craft  we 
have  our  wealth." 

I  could  only  protest  that  these  appeals  to  the  interest 
and  passions  of  a  political  party  were  unfair.  Diana  of 
the  Ephesians  and  Yankee  Abolitionism  may  both  have 
been  great,  and  they  were  great  in  the  sense  of  being  pop- 
alar,  but  that  does  not  prove  that  the  Gospel  of  God  is  a 
pernicious  imposture.  The  Jewish  Constitution,  which 
tolerated  the  enslavement  of  savages  in  Judea,  and  the 
resolves  of  the  Abolition  caucus,  which  condemned  it  in 
America,  might  both  be  right,  since  the  two  systems  were 
not  to  be  judged  by  one  another;  each  should  be  consid- 
ered with  proper  reference  to  circumstances  widely  differ- 
ent. But  the  suggestion  that  the  infallible  God  might  be 
believed  to  have  proceeded  on  just  grounds  without  im- 
pugning the  righteousness  of  the  Abolitionists  met  with 
no  favor. 

The  practiced  demagog  cannot  forego  the  tricks  of  hia 
trade,  and  so  he  makes  the  panegyric  of  his  political  fac- 
tion an  excuse  for  casting  contempt  in  the  face  of  his 
Maker  £nd  for  insulting  the  faith  and  reason  of  all  who  be- 
lieve in  Christ.  The  barest  thought  that  the  Judffe  of  all 


122  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

the  earth  did  right  fills  him  with  rancor,  which  he  pours 
out  over  page  after  page  and  then  repeats  it  again  and 
again : 

Unpacks  his  heart  with  words, 

And  falls  to  cursing  like  a  very  drab — 

A  scullion — 

I  have  said  thus  much  about  the  slavery  point,  not  as  an 
answer  to  Mr.  Ingersoll,  but  because  I  will  not  have  it 
understood,  if  I  can  help  it,  that  I  permitted  or  provoked 
the  introduction  of  partisan  politics  into  the  discussion  of 
a  religious  subject. 

These  furious  outbreaks  of  intemperate  abuse  upon  God, 
His  laws  and  institutions,  do  not  disturb  any  one's  intel- 
lectual belief  or  at  all  diminish  the  awful  reverence  which 
a  Christian  feels  for  the  supreme  object  of  his  adoration. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  thinks  he  is  raising  a  storm  on  the  ocean  of 
thought;  he  is  not  producing  a  ripple.  He  is  merely 
doing  the  part  of  a  common  scold,  to  whom  the  idle  listen 
for  the  sport  of  the  thing,  while  others,  taking  counsel  of 
their  outraged  feelings,  think  him  a  nuisance  that  ought 
to  be  abated.  This  is,  perhaps,  not  so  very  easy  to  do.  A 
woman,  for  such  an  offense,  could  be  ducked,  under  the  rule 
of  the  ancient  law,  but  when  a  communis  vixatrix  of  the 
male  gender  vexes  the  peace  of  the  neighborhood  in  this 
way  the  remedy  is  difficult  and  doubtful. 

To  learn  how  gratuitous  these  anilities  are — how  he 
scolds  for  the  mere  sake  of  scolding — look  at  his  fanfar- 
onade on  polygamy.  By  the  unaided  influence  of  the 
Church  alone  this  vice  has  been  extirpated  completely  and 
perfectly.  In  Christian  countries  the  universal  rule  is 
that  one  man  shall  be  the  husband  of  one  wife  and  no 
more;  and  it  is  neither  the  rule  nor  the  practice  anywhere 
else  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Now,  a  person  who  has  or- 


JERE  S.  BLACK'S  REPLY.  123 

dinary  sense  must  see  that  the  moral  merit  of  Christ's 
Gospel  in  this  respect  is  directly  proportioned  to  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  evil,  from  which  it  has  relieved  human 
society. 

But  Mr.  Ingersoll  tries  to  blacken  the  character  of  the 
Christian  religion  by  railing  at  the  bad  practice  which  it 
has  opposed  and  destroyed.  If  he  had  flung  out  at  mono- 
gamous marriage,  which  Christianity  upholds,  his  act, 
though  unjust,  might  have  had  an  apparent  object  not  alto- 
gether preposterous.  Indeed,  monogamy  is  as  open  to 
mere  vulgar  vituperation  as  polygamy.  When  an  unclean 
mind  exerts  itself  to  imagine  what  may  take  place  it  is  as 
easy  to  talk  about  brutality  and  the  animal  degradation  of 
woman  in  one  case  as  another.  To  the  beastly  all  things 
are  beastly. 

In  point  of  fact  the  great  body  of  unbelievers  have  de- 
nounced the  Christian  institution  of  marriage  with  espe- 
cial bitterness.  To  tie  one  man  and  one  woman  together 
by  a  bond  which  nothing  but  death  can  dissolve  is,  in  their 
opinion,  not  only  unjust  and  immoral,  but  a  base  and 
brutal  tyranny  which  imposes  a  degrading  restraint  upon 
the  natural  rights  of  men  and  women  to  love  and  cohabit 
with  whom  they  please.  This  is  a  prime  and  prominent 
part  of  the  atheistic  theory,  everywhere  advocated  by  its 
regular  organs  and  its  greatest  disciples.  In  France, 
where  their  societies  are  compact  and  powerful,  they  define 
their  creed  substantially  thus:  1.  There  is  no  God.  2. 
Religion  is  a  lie.  3.  Property  is  theft.  4.  Love  must  be 
free.  5.  Marriage  is  slavery.  6.  Children  belong  to  the 
State  and  not  to  anybody  in  particular. 

This  is  u  the  gospel  of  dirt,"  I  don't  say  that  Mr.  In- 
gersoll swallows  it  whole.  He  believes,  or  at  least  he 
practices,  the  Christian  doctrine  on  the  subjects  of  mar- 


124  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

riage,  paternity,  and  property,  not  because  he  is  bound  bj 
the  Divine  commandment,  but  because  he  feels  like  it. 
Others,  rejecting  as  he  does  the  "  golden  metewand  of  the 
law,"  have  an  equal  right  to  take  their  own  feelings  as  the 
measure  of  righteousness.  So  one  set  of  atheists  curses 
marriage  and  another  blackguards  polygamy,  and  they  are 
both  right  if  there  be  no  God  above  all  and  over  all. 

My  principal  object  is  to  show  that  Ingersoll's  "circu- 
lar abuse  "  amounts  to  absolutely  nothing.  A  regular 
reply  would  prove  that  in  every  line  of  his  last  article  he 
has  either  falsified  history  or  applied  to  it  an  erroneous 
interpretation.  But  I  am  tempted  not  to  quit  without 
giving  a  sample  of  his  efforts  .at  scientific  reasoning. 

If  he  does  not  deny  the  existence  of  a  God,  his  occupa- 
tion is  gone.  The  object,  therefore,  of  his  highest  ambi- 
tion ever  since  he  took  the  stump  against  Christianity  has 
been  and  is  to  annihilate  the  evidence  which  shows  that 
the  world  has  a  Maker  and  a  Moral  Governor.  This 
being  his  great  central  point  on  which  all  other  points 
must  turn,  he  has,  of  course,  laid  himself  out  to  his  very 
best  for  it.  Let  us  see  what  he  has  achieved. 

I  thought  I  was  giving  a  true  and  accurate  account  of 
his  theory  when  I  said  that  he  regarded  the  universe  as 
natural;  that  "it  came  into  being  of  its  own  accord  "; 
that  "it  made  its  own  laws  at  the  start,  and  afterward 
improved  itself  considerably  by  spontaneous  evolution." 
But  he  denies  that  this  is  a  true  exposition  of  his  views,|and 
he  exercises  his  conceded  right  to  define  them  again  more 
sharply  than  he  did  before.  Now  he  says  that  the  uni- 
verse did  not  come  into  being  at  all;  it  always  was;  nor 
did  it  make  its  own  laws,  for  it  has  no  laws. 

If  the  material  universe  existed,  just  as  it  is  now,  from 
all  unbegun  eternity,  there  is,  to  be  sure,  not  much  chance 


JERE  S.  BLACK'S  ME  PL  Y.  125 

for  a  creature  to  have  done  any  work;  if  its  harmony  is 
preserved  and  the  uniformity  of  its  action  maintained 
without  any  rule  or  regulation  prescribed  by  a  superior 
power,  then  there  is  and  has  been  no  need  of  a  lawgiver; 
God  is,  therefore,  so  useless  a  being  that  He  must  be  the- 
oretically blotted  out  of  existence. 

For  the  proposition  that  the  universe  always  was  (with- 
out a  creator)  and  will  be  forever  (without  a  preserver)  he 
offers  only  one  proof,  to-wit,  that  it  is  according  to  his 
idea.  This  he  considers  potent  enough  to  overrule  all 
the  evidence,  direct  and  circumstantial,  by  which  his 
"idea"  is  opposed.  All  testimony  borne  by  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,  all  the  deductions  of  reason,  all  philos- 
ophy, and  all  faith  in  Holy  Writ,  must  be  swept  aside,  so 
that  his  idea  may  have  free  course  to  run  and  be  glorified. 
But  this  ascription  of  supreme  authority  to  an  idea,  mere- 
ly because  it  happens  to  be  his  idea,  will  hardly  be  con- 
curred in.  The  assertion  of  it,  indeed,  proves  nothing 
except  that  his  bump  of  self-esteem  is  in  a  state  of  chronic 
inflammation. 

He  starts  another  idea,  which  has  the  same  special  merit 
of  being  his  own,  namely:  that  the  material  universe  is 
not  governed  by  laws.  The  planets  move  at  the  rate  and 
in  orbits  which  can  be  calculated  with  absolute  certainty; 
the  earth  revolves  on  its  axis  with  such  perfect  regularity 
that  the  very  second  of  time  at  which  the  sun  will  rise  at 
a  particular  place  can  be  predicted  a  thousand  years  be- 
forehand; chemical  substances  combine  always  in  exactly 
the  same  relative  proportions;  in  the  animal  and  vegetable 
worlds  like  produces  like;  in  all  organized  beings  certain 
causes  are  known  to  produce  certain  effects  favorable  or 
unfavorable  to  light  and  health. 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  idea  .is  that  these  are    not  the  results  of 


126  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

law  or  tiny  sort  ot'intelligentpre-arrangement;  but  they  are 
phenomena  which  happen,  and  the  world  is  by  mere  acci- 
dent prevented  from  falling  into  chaos.  In  his  wisdom  he 
decides  "  as  matter  of  fact  "  that  there  is  no  rule  back  of 
the  phenomenon  which  a  controlling  power  compels  the 
subject-matter  to  obey;  it  merely  happens,  but  it  happens 
so  uniformly  that  it  creates  the  idea  of  law  in  our  minds, 
which  is,  however,  a  mere  delusion.  If  Galileo  and  New- 
ton and  Kepler  and  all  the  other  philosophers,  great  and 
small,  have  been  seduced  into  the  weak  belief  that  the  ma- 
terial universe  is  underthe  reign  of  law,  it  is  rare  good 
fortune  for  us  in  these  latter  days  to  have  found  a 
superior  personage  who,  by  merely  turning  the  Drum- 
mond  light  of  his  intellect  on  the  subject,  at  once  exposes 
the  blunders  of  the  ignorant  living  and  "  the  barbarous 
dead." 

Let  no  man  misunderstand  or  misrepresent  Mr.  Inger- 
Boll.  It  is  not  in  irony  or  to  point  a  scurrile  jest  that  he 
denies  the  operation  of  natural  laws  upon  matter.  He  is 
in  serious  earnest,  and  if  he  does  not  actually  believe  what 
he  says,  his  simulation  of  sincerity  is  very  perfect.  To 
make  himself  clear  he  takes  a  simple  case.  Water,  he 
says,  always  runs  down  hill,  not  because  there  is  a  law  be- 
hind it — law  does  not  cause  the  phenomenon,  but  the  phe- 
nomenon causes  the  idea  of  law  to  exist  in  our  minds — but 
that  idea  is  on  this  side  of  the  fact.  It  follows  that  Newton 
must  have  been  grossly  mistaken  when  he  said  that  the 
falling  of  water  and  other  bodies  toward  the  center  of  the 
earth  was  caused  by  the  law  of  gravitation. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  supposes  that  he  is  imputing  an  absurdity 
to  me  when  lie  says,  "Mr.  Black  probably  thinks  the  dif- 
ference in  the  weight  of  rocks  and  clouds  is  produced  by 
law/'  Undoubtedly  I  do.  I  learned  in  my  infancy  (and 


JERE  8.  BLACK'S  REPLY.  127 

I  have  "kept  the  credulity  of  the  cradle  ")  that  this  dif- 
ference is  caused  by  that  same  law  of  gravitation  operating 
according  to  rules  which  are  perfectly  understood  by  all 
tolerably  well-informed  men.  I  will  go  further  arid  con- 
fess that  I  think  it  a  most  beneficent  law  which  prevents 
the  rocks  from  flying  about  through  the  air  and  the  clouds 
from  becoming  immovably  fixed  in  the  earth.  Our  great 
Creator  ought  to  be  adored  and  thanked^  for  making  such 
an  arrangement.  But  this  only  proves  to  Mr.  Ingersoll 
that  I  am  a  believer  in  "  the  monstrous  and  miraculous, 
the  impossible  and  immoral." 

Mr.  Ingersoll  is  much  accused  of  plagiarism.  Whether 
that  be  true  or  not  of  his  declamatory  spouting,  this  no- 
tion that  the  material  world  is  not  governed  by  law  is 
without  doubt  original.  It  never  entered  any  human  head 
before — and  I  think  that  in  all  future  time  it  will  find  no 
lodgment  in  the  mind  of  any  reasonable  being. 

Another  way  he  has  of  reaching  the  athiestic  conclu- 
sion. I  do  not  say  that  I  know  what  he  wants  to  be  at. 
But  as  well  as  I  can  understand  him,  he  asserts  that  the 
universe  could  not  have  had  a  design  because  we  cannot 
trace  back  the  designer  to  his  own  origin;  the  world  was 
not  made  because  we  cannot  tell  who  made  the  maker. 
The  mechanism  of  a  watch  is  so  curious  that  "  it  must," 
says  he,  "  have  had  a  maker,  but  he  adds  the  watchmaker 
himself  is  more  wonderfully  made  than  the  watch,  and 
hence  he  infers  that  he  also  must  have  had  a  maker,  since 
the  necessity  of  a  Creator  increases  with  the  wonder  of 
the  creature.  He  is  unquestionably,  though  perhaps  un- 
consciously, right  in  this.  It  makes  a  demonstration  as 
complete  as  mathematics  that  man  was  created  by  "some 
pre-existent  and  self-conscious  being  of  power  and  wisdom 
to  us  unconceivable." 


128  MISTAKES  OF  INUERSOLL. 

But  instead  of  accepting  this  plain,  palpable,  and  neces- 
sary consequence  of  his  own  logic,  he  turns  his  back  upon 
the  conclusion,  and  begins  to  maunder  over  his  own  ina- 
bility to  understand  how  a  designer  could  be  without  an 
anterior  design,  and  telling  how  hard  it  is  for  him  to  see 
the  plan  or  design  in  earthquakes  and  pestilences;  and 
how  the  justice  of  God  is  not  visible  to  him  in  the  history 
of  the  world. 

This  silly  trash"  he  thinks  sufficient  to  repel  the  irresist- 
ible proofs  of  a  Creator  which  he  himself  has  adduced, 
and  which  by  all  fair  and  unperverted  minds  are  received 
as  conclusive. 

J.  S.  BLACK. 


Not  satisfied  with  his  recent  parade  of  the  "Mistakes  of 
Moses  "  before  the  Chicago  public  (which  called  forth  our 
first  book,  entitled  the  "  Mistakes  of  Ingersoll,  as  Shown  By 
Prof.  Swing  and  Others "),  Mr.  I.  has  since  returned  and 
delivered  another  lecture  against  the  Bible  and  against  his 
critics,  Prof.  Swing,  Dr.  Ryder,  Dr.  Hertford  and  Dr. 
Collyer.  These  last  efforts  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  have  called  forth 
the  present  volume,  in  which  will  be  found  additional 
"  Mistakes,"  as  shown  by  Rev.  W.  F.  Crafts,  who  is  the 
well-known  successor  of  Dr.  Tiffany  in  Trinity  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church;  by  Chaplain  C.  C.  McCabe,  Bishop 
Cheney,  Arthur  Swazey,  D.D.,  Robert  Collyer,  D.D.,  whose 
names  are  all  familar  to  the  public;  and  by  Fred  Perry 
Powers,  who  is  favorably  identified  with  Chicago  journalism. 
The  "  commendable  fairness,"  mentioned  by  the  press,  in 
printing  both  the  "  text  and  replies  "  in  the  former  volume* 
requires  in  this  instance,  also  the  text,  which  is  given  at  the 
close  and  which  includes  Mr.  Ingersoll's  replies  to  Prof. 
Swing,  Dr.  Ryder,  Brooke  Herford  and  others. 

J.  B.  McCLURE. 

CHICAGO,  May  17,  1879. 

Entered  according  to  Art  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1879,  by  J.  B.  McCuiRB  &  R.  8. 
RHODES,  in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C 


J"ACJlfi. 

W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY          ......  7 

Ingersollism  Outlined — "Ten  Points"  instead  of  "  Five  " — Infi- 
del Protoplasm  .  .  .  .  .  .  7 

First  Point  in  the  Ten — Sepulchral  Hoots  of  the  Ingersoll  Owl — 
A  Theological  Rip  Van  Winkle  ....         10 

Ingersoll  Mistakes  a  Part  for  the  Whole — Gross  Misrepresenta- 
tions ........         12 

The  Great  Ingersoll  Boomerang — How  it  Works — Further  Mis- 
representations Examined        .....  13 

Misrepresenting  Bible  Passages        .  .  .  14 

Sun  and  Moon  Standing  Still     .....  15 

Hell 16 

The  Present  vs.  the  Future  .  .  .  .  .  17 

Ingersoll's  Horrible  Estimate  of  Truth  ...  19 

The  Bible  the  Best  of  Books,  and  Christ  the  Best  of  Men         .         20 
Something  New  if  True — Infidelity  the  Essential  Factor  in  Pro- 
gressive Civilization — But  Coleridge,  Wm.  H.  Seward,   Bis- 
marck, and  other  Great  Statesman  can  not  see  it — Civilization 
goes  only  with  Christianity  ....  21 

Marvelous  Power  of  Time  and  Circumstance— Tragic  Effect  of 
Iso-thermal    Lines — Peoria    Mud    Necessarily   the    Seventli 
Heaven  as  Ingersoll  Sees  it  .  .  .  .34 

Law  is  Ingersoll's  God  .....  26 

Liberty  and  Infidelity — What  De  Tocqueville  Says  About  it  26 

Woman— Ingersoll's  Theory  at  Variance  with  Facts        .        .          27 
Ingersoll's  Theory  of  Childhood — Some  of  His  Little  Stories — 
The  Whole  Subject  Carefully  Examined — Significant  Incident 
in  the  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln  .  .  .  .          28 

Ingersoll  Says  Christianity  Fetters  Thought — The  Bible  and  a 

Host  of  Distinguished  Men  Say  Otherwise        .  .  .32 

A  Cloud  of  Witnesses  .....  34 

Jesus  Christ  .....  37 

Amazing  Ignorance  of   Infidels  Concerning  the  Scriptures — 
Hume's  Ignorance  of  the  New  Testament — Tom  Paine  With- 
out a  Bible  .......         38 

I 


4  CONTENTS. 

Distributed  Ignorance   nd  Concentrated  Hatred — Probable  Cause 

of  Ingers"H's  Infidelity  .  .  ...  89 

The  Truth  of  the  Whole  Matter      .          . .  .'          .  .        40 

CHAPLAIN  MCCABE'S  REPLY  .  .  .  .  .43 

The  Famous  Chaplain  Has  a  Remarkable  Dream — He  Sees  the 
Great  City  of  Ingersollville — Which  Ingersoll  and  the  Infidel 
Host  Enter — And  are  Shut  in  for  Six  Months — Remarkable 
Condition  of  Things  Outside  and  Inside— Happiness  and 
Misery— Ingersoll  Finally  Petitions  for  a  Church  and  sends 
for  a  Lot  of  Preachers  .....  43 

DR.  SWAZEY'S  REPLY  ......  49 

Momentary  View  of  Col.  Ingersoll  Through  the  Doctor's  Glass — 
The   Bible  on  the  Meridian — What  the  Doctor  Sees  in  the 
Great  Book  .......         49 

Occultatiou    of   Ingersoll's  Good    Sense — General    Survey    of 

Deities— Scope  of  Divine  Revelation  ...  51 

The  Great  Central  Figure — Absolute  Unity  of  the  Bible  System       53 
The  Bible  Law  of  Development  vs.  Infidel  Philosophy  .  54 

Common  Sense  View  of  the  Subject — How  it  Eliminates  Polyg- 
amy, Slavery, Etc.  ......         56 

More  Common  Sense — The  Great  Ingersoll  Orb  Approaching 
the  Nihilistic  Belt— Nebulae  .....  58 

DR.  COLLYER'S  REPLY         ......  63 

Dr.  Collyer  Relates  a  Little  Story — A  Book  that  Cost  Mr.  Inger- 
soll the  Governorship  of  Illinois — The  Volume  Philosophically 
Considered — Heavy  Blows  .  .  .  •  .  .63 

Sparks  Flying  in  all  Directions — Singular  Mental  Phenomenon 
Occasioned  by  $25,000  a  Year  .  .  .  64 

The  Clear  Ring  of  Truth  vs.  the  Dull  Thud  of  the  Baser  Metal- 
Potency  of  Simple  Statement — The  Doctor's  Objections  to 
Ingersoll's  Talk  ......  67 

Putting  the  Fine  Edge  on  Orthodoxy — Taking  a  Weld  with  Prof. 
Swing  and  Dr.  Thomas — Borax  and  Bigotry  .  .  69 

A  Touching  Illustration — Eloquence  and  Truth — Havelock's 
Saints  ........  73 

Atheism — Not  an  Institution  but  a  "  Destitution !  " — The  True 
Life 74 

FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY  ....  75 

The  Sinaitie  Code — Solvent  Powers  of  the  Historic  Method- 
Graphic  Illustration  of  the  Two  Schools  ...  75 


CONTENTS.  5 

Divine  Adjustment  of  the  Moral  Law — Progressive  Elimination 

of  Polygamy,  Slavery,  Etc. — Mount  Sinai  and  Mount  Calvary  78 

Purpose  and  Potency  of  the  Mosaic  Law  ...  80 
Excessive  Wickedness  and  Proportionate  Punishment — The 

Court  of  Heaven  vs.  the  Court  of  Eartli  ...  82 

Able  Bodied  Mendacity  and  Civilization — Love  and  Obedience  84 

Mr.  Powers'  Pungent  Peroration  ....  85 

BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY         .  .  .  .  .  .89 

How  the  Question  of  Forgery  Applies  to  the  Five  Books  of 

Moses      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  89 

The  "  Common  Ground  "  of  the  Contending  Parties — Logical 

Position  of  Ezra      .  .  .  .  .  .  .91 

The  Bishop  Planting  Signals  on  the  Mountain  Tops  of  History — 

Survey  of  the  New  Moses  Air  Line    ....  92 

Termination  of  the  Great  Air  Line  .  .  .  .95 

Genealogical  Reflections,  .....  96 

Cutting  the  Gordian  Knot      .  .  .  .  .  .97 

The  Bishop's  Challenge  —  Moses  and  Ingersoll  as  Chronologists  99 
Mud  Calendars  vs.  Facts  —  Some  Sad  and  Sorrowful  Scientific 

Figuring  in  the  Sand    ......  101 

A  Mistake  of  Ingersoll,  Tom  Paine  &  Co.  Corrected — Conclusion  103 

fNGERSOLL's  LECTURE  ON  SKULLS  and  his  Replies  to  Prof.  Swing, 
Dr.  Ryder,  Dr.  Herford,  Dr.  Collyer,  and  Other  Critics,   .  .    107 

INGERSOLL  AT  His  BROTHER'S  GRAVE          .          .          .  146 

Colonel  Ingersoll's  Funeral  Oration    ....          147 

HENRY  WARD  BEECHER'S  Comments  on  Mr.  IngersolPs  Faith, 
and  Funeral  Discourse        .  .  .  .  .  .148 

HON.   ISAAC   N.   ARNOLD'S  Comments  on    Ingersoll's  Funeral 
Oration  •         150 


ISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 


AS  SHOWN  BY 


W.  F.  CRAFTS, 
CHAPLAIN  McCABE, 
ARTHUR  SWAZEY,  D.  D. 


ROBERT  COLLYEli,  D.  D. 
F.  P.  POWERS, 
BISHOP  CHENEY, 


AND  OTHERS. 
ALSO  INCLUDING 


INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE  IN  FULL  ON  "  SKULLS,"  AND  HIS  RE- 
PLIES TO  PKOF.  SWING,  W.  II.  RYDER.  BROOKE 
HERFORD,  AND  OTHER  CRITICS. 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY. 


Ingersollism  Outlined — "Ten  Points"   instead    of  "Five" — Infidel 

Protoplasm. 

"  I  WAR  with  principles,  not  with  men  " — the  motto  of 
Webster  in  political  debates — should  be  the  law  in  all  con- 
flicts of  ideas,  especially  in  the  realm  of  religion.  It  is 
not  of  the  person,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  that  I  speak,  but  rather 
of  the  principles  of  which  he  is  the  most  popular  spokes- 
man, and  which  make  up  that  shallowest,  but  loudest 
Jericho  book  of  infidelity's  bitter  waters  which  begins  in 
a  few  tears  of  pretended  martyrdom  to  love  of  truth ;  spat- 
ters the  mud  of  epithets  upon  Christians,  while  condemn- 
ing that  very  vu-e  in  a  part  of  the  Church  in  less  advanced 

7 


8  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

ages;  babbies  shallowly  along  its  little  cbanncl  about  law 
as  an  almigbtj  executive,  as  if  the  rails  that  give  direction 
to  a  train  took  the  place  of  the  engine  that  draws  it:  winds 

J.  O  t 

very  crookedly  through  the  Old  Testament,  avoiding  every 
passage  except  those  few  that  can  be  used  for  ridicule; 
plows  still  more  crookedly  through  church  history,  shun- 
ning every  part  except  the  unchristian  swamps  of  bigotry 
aad  superstition;  keeps  up  the  same  snaky  crookedness  in 
its  passage  through  religion  of  to-day,  hurrying  noisily 
among  only  the  few  rocky  and  marshy  places,  where  it  can 
find  the  reptiles  of  superstition  and  error;  passes  with  great 
dash  of  spray  along  the  audacious  theory  that  Christian 
civilization  is  the  result  of  anti-Christian  forces;  plunges 
with  loud  roar  of  waters  down  its  claim  that  infidelity  is 
the  only  liberator  of  man,  woman,  and  child;  and  still  flow- 
ing within  its  narrow  little  channel  babbles  of  itself  as  an 
emancipated  ocean  of  untrammeled  thought. 

These  characteristics  of  the  brook  are  the  ten  points  of 
Ingersollism.  I  have  read  and  re-read,  carefully,  the  nine 
published  lectures  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  on  religious  themes, 
besides  hearing  the  one  entitled  "  Skulls,"  and  every  one  of 
them  has  something  on  each  tof  these  ten  points  of  his  fixed 
and  unchanging  creed,  and  not  one  or  all  has  anything 
beyond  these  ten  "  doctrines  " — for  he  often  uses  the  words, 
"  That  is  my  doctrine."  While  attacking  creeds  of  the 
Church  he  holds  and  urges  all  to  believe  his  own  unformu- 
lated  but  distinct  creed,  offering  in  place  of  the  "  five  points 
of  Calvinism  "  the  ten  points  of  Ingersollism,  the  latter 
occurring  as  regularly  in  every  one  of  his  lectures  in  this 
age  as  the  former  did  a  century  ago  in  the  sermons  of  Cal- 
vinists,  which  he  ridicules  for  their  sameness. 

"What  is  this  frightful  monster  that  we  call  "  a  creed?" 
Simply  a  statement  of  what  one  believes.  Every  man, 
jmless  he  is  an  idiot,  has  a  creed  in  which  he  agrees 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  9 

•with  somebody.  The  only  question  is  to  find  by  "reason, 
observation,  and  experience,''  which  is  the  best.  It 
would  hardly  be  considered  bigotry  for  a  scientist  to 
believe  a  few  things  as  a  creed  of  fixed  scientific  truths 
which  no  progress  can  ever  erase,  for  instance,  the  rotund- 
ity and  revolution  of  the  earth,  the  attraction  of  the 
planets  upon  each  other,  and  scores  of  other  things  M  liich 
every  scientist  has  held  for  many  years  unchanged,  and  is 
sure  are  unchangeable  because  proved  conclusively.  There 
are  some  certainties  in  the  science  of  religion,  such  as  are 
referred  to  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  may,  without  any 
greater  bigotry,  be  considered  as  proved  and  established. 
The  Christian  Church  of  to-day  does  not  generally  insist 
upon  anything  further  than  these  few  concrete  facts  of  the 
'  Apostles'  Creed  "  as  essentials  "  in  Christian  belief.  "When 
Evangelical  churches  shout  their  watchword,  "  In  essentials, 
unity;  in  non-essentials,  liberty;  in  all  things,  charity,"  it  is 
as  if  a  company  of  scientists  should  say,  "  On  proved  facts 
we  will  all  agree,  but  in  the  realms  of  hypothesis  and 
opinion,  we  will  agree  to  disagree." 

But  the  special  point  we  wish  to  notice  is,  that  Mr. 
Ingersoll  attacks  creed  with  creed.  He  is  as  bigoted  a  par- 
tisan of  his  own  creed  as  ever  called  hard  names.  The  very 
heart  of  his  creed  seems  to  be  the  belief  that  his  mission  is 
to  destroy  the  creed  of  everybody  else. 

It  is  a  suggestive  fact  that  the  naturally-gifted  mind  of 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  who  declares  that  godless  and  soulless  mate- 
rialism is  the  emancipator  and  inspirer  of  thought,  should 
be  able,  in  all  the  years  which  these  ten  lectures  represent, 
to  produce  but  ten  ideas,  the  same  ten  ideas  which  made 
up  his  earliest  lecture,  years  ago,  appearing  successively  in 
each  of  the  succeeding  lectures,  including  that  of  to-day, 
there  being  no  change  save  in  the  cap  and  bells  of  his 
jokes.  Beading  these  ten  ideas  over  and  over  for  as  many 


10  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

hours  in  going  through  these  lectures,  brought  back  a 
ludicrous  scene  in  our  college  burial  of  mathematics  when 
fifteen  notes  of  Plejel's  hymn  were  played  dolefully  over 
and  over  again  for  nearly  an  hour,  as  marching  music. 

In  reading  these  lectures,  which  are  but  ten  combinations 
%nd  permutations  of  ten  ideas,  one  is  reminded  also  of  the 
lecturer's  own  illustration  of  the  boarding  house  keeper, 
who,  for  years,  had  no  change  of  diet  from  hash,  for  every 
lecture  is  the  same  hash  of  ten  ideas,  changed  only  in 
the  name  and  in  the  order  of  putting  in  the  ten  elements. 

ARTICLE  I. 

First  Point  in  the  Ten — Sepulchral  Hoots  of  the  Ingersoll  Owl — 
A  Theological  Rip  Van  Winkle. 

As  in  the  beet  hash  of  New  England  the  blood  red  beet 
predominates  and  gives  color  to  the  whole,  so  the  principal 
element  in  these  lectures  against  Christianity  is  the  blood 
of  past  persecutions  by  a  corrupt  part  of  the  Church,  for 
which  true  Christianity  has  no  more  responsibility  than  a 
loyal  colonel  in  our  war  of  1776,  or  1861,  for  the  robberies 
and  crimes  of  camp-followers  or  traitors.  In  every  published 
lecture  on  religion,  Mr.  Ingersoll  deliberately  cites  the  acts 
of  the  Benedict  Arnolds  of  the  Christian  army  as  repre- 
senting the  Washingtons  and  Grants.  He  describes  past 
counterfeits  of  religion  as  specimens  of  its  accepted  cur- 
rency. It  is  as  if  one  should  attack  present  astronomers  by 
relating  ridiculous  stories  of  the  old  astrologers,  or  assail 
present  physicians  by  quoting  the  strange  practices  of  the 
ancient  alchemists. 

In  one  lecture — a  fair  representative  of  all  in  this  respect 
— I  found  that  in  forty-three  pages  only  two  did  not  con- 
tain these  stale  references  to  past  persecutions,  except  a  few 
pages  given  to  the  trial  of  Professor  Swing,  which  were 
equally  stale  as  assailing  chiefly  abandoned  features  of 


W.  F.  C  HAFTS'  ME  PLY  11 

human  Calvinism.  Past  errors  and  follies  of  the  humaa 
Calvinism,  human  Catholicism,  and  heathen  religions  are 
constantly  spoken  of  as  if  vital  elements  of  Christianity. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  ought  to  have  a  hymn  to  sing  at  the  open- 
ing and  close  of  his  lectures,  made  on  the  pattern  of  that 
one  whose  first  verse  is: 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 
Go  on,  go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

with  forty-two  verses  more  of  the  same,  substituting  "  past 
persecutions,"  instead  of  "go  on,"  which  is  too  progressive 
for  a  "•  go-back  "  lecture. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  is  a  Rip  Yan  Winkle  in  theology,  who 
seems  to  have  slept  ever  since  the  days  of  persecution. 
He  is  a  Sancho  Panza  who  assails  imaginary  foes  of  his  own 
making,  and  thinks  he  has  captured  the  golden  helmet  of 
Christianity  when  he  has  only  secured  the  abandoned  brass 
"kettle  of  old  traditions  and  discarded  superstitions.  He  is 
a  Falstaff  killing  the  dead  Percy  of  past  follies.  His  lectures 
bustle  with  the  antiquated  and  misused  words  "priests," 
"  dark  ages,"  "  witches,"  "  fagots,"  "  religious  wars,"  "  church 
fathers,"  "  damned  infants,"  "  martyrs,"  "  gods,"  etc.,  as 
if  he  were  speaking  in  a  heathen  land,  and  also  in  some 
•dead  century.  And  he  uses  the  past  tense  so  exclusively 
in  his  "  progressive "  lectures  that  one  would  suppose 
English  as  well  as  Hebrew  had  no  present  tense.  It 
must  have  been  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  boyhood,  that  came 
from  his  first  hunt  crying,  "  I  've  shot  a  cherub," 
having  mistaken  an  owl  for  a  cherub,  because  of  the 
wretched  pictures  of  the  latter  on  the  old  grave  stones. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  logically  destroys  some  Church  owl  of  the 
dark  ages,  and  because  it  corresponds  with  his  own  carica- 
ture of  the  Church  thinks  hn  has  dethroned  Christianity 


13  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

itself.  Like  Poe's  "  raven  "  who  had  but  one  word,  "  Never- 
more," Mr.  Ingersoll  is  continually  crying  in  the  ears  of 
the  present  that  worn-out  strain  about  abuses  which  we  all 
condemn,  u  Galileo-Servetus,  Galileo-Servetus." 

This  ten-idea  champion  of  popular  materialism,  while 
talking  of  progress  and  condemning  those  who  hold  fast  to 
things  of  the  past,  is  nevertheless  so  largely  devoted  to 
showing  his  carefully  preserved  martyr-mummies  from  the 
long-past  ages  of  persecution,  that  we  find  Mark  Twain's 
question  constantly  arising  at  each  new  charge  against 
Christianity:  "Is  he — is  he  dead?"  and  we  are  also 
tempted  to  cry  out  for  a  "  fresh  corpse "  in  place  of 
these  very  dry  and  dead  mummies  of  past  abuses.  To 
paraphrase  the  lecturer's  own  words,  we  want  one  pres- 
ent fact.  We  pass  our  hats  through  the  lectures  in  vain 
for  some  present  facts  against  pure  Christianity,  which  he 
assumes  to  assail  and  overthrow.  There  is  far  more  excuse 
for  Thomas  Paine,  in  an  age  when  the  old  Calvinistic  errors 
were  largely  held,  and  for  Yoltaire,  surrounded  by  the 
superstitions  of  Romanism,  misunderstanding  Christianity, 
than  for  this  modern  lecturer,  who  very  well  knows  that 
the  caricatures  which  he  represents  as  Christianity  are 
very  old  pictures  of  its  ancient  camp-followers. 

ARTICLE  II. 

Ingersoll  Mistakes  a  Part  for  the  Whole — Gross  Misrepresen- 
tations. 

Article  Second  of  Ingersollism,  like  unto  the  first,  but 
with  present  instead  of  past  tense,  is  about  as  follows: 
Christianity  to-day  is  proved  to  be  false  by  the  present 
errors  and  abuses  that  are  found  in  some  of  the  churches. 

Romish  superstitions  and  the  errors  of  those  who  have 
grossly  misinterpreted  the  Bible  as  a  support  of  slavery, 
polygamy,  etc.,  are  continually  used  by  this  champion  of 


W.  P.  GRAFTS'  REPLY.  13 

"  liberty  of  thought,"  and  "  charity  "  and  "  brotherhood," 
as  representing  true  Christianity  to-day,  which  is  quite  as 
honorable  as  if  a  man  should  attack  the  principles  of  med- 
icine by  citing  the  tricks  of  quacks.  An  examination  of 
the  hull  of  the  Great  Eastern  found  adhering  to  the  iron- 
plates  of  the  bottom  an  enormous  multitude  of  mussels, 
whose  weight  is  estimated  at  three  hundred  tons.  The 
great  ship  has  been  carrying  on  her  hull  a  burden  equal  to 
full  cargoes  for  six  or  eight  sailing  ships. 

Suppose  I  should  show  you  a  few  of  those  barnacles  as 
specimens  of  what  the  Great  Eastern  is  made  of,  and  then 
denounce  its  builders  as  fools?  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  constantly 
confounding  barnacles  of  some  "  church  "  with  Christian- 
ity. Suppose  I  should  take  the  belts  a-nd  whips  of  torture 
that  are  used  by  Romanists  in  Mexico  and  show  them  in 
lectures  as  specimens  of  the  barbarism  of  Congregational- 
ists  and  Methodists?  It  is  certainly  most  palpable  unfair- 
ness for  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  use  the  word  "gods"  indiscrimi- 
nately of  heathen  and  Christian  objects  of  worship,  and  to 
employ  the  words,  "  The  Church,"  as  if  there  were  no  false 
or  true,  past  or  present  in  connection  with  it,  and  as  if  its 
meaning  were  as  much  a  unit  as  "  The  Moon."  So  also  he 
unfairly  classes  all  ministers  as  "priests."  It  would  be 
quite  as  fair  to  speak  of  all  "  medicine  men,"  past  and 
present,  savage  and  civilized,  under  the  words,  "  The 
Doctors." 

ARTICLE  III. 

The  Great  Ingersoll  Boomerang — How  it  Works — Further  Mis- 
representations Carefully  Examined. 

Far  less  prominent,  but  ever  present,  is  the  third  element 
in  Ingersollism — an  oft-recurring  moan — "  Infidels  to-day 
are  martyrs  at  whom  men  cast  epithets,  but  not  ballots."1 

The  defeated  infidel  politician  appears  as  regularly  and 


14  MISTAKES  OF  INOEHSOLL. 

revengefully  in  every  lecture  (indirectly,  of  course)  as  the 
misanthropic  Byron  shows  himself  in  each  of  his  poems  as 
the  real  hero  under  the  various  names  of  "  Childe  Harold  <r 
"Don  Juan,"  "Corsair,"  etc.  He  who  cries  out  against 
the  past  for  calling  infidels  by  hard  names  hurls  in  the 
more  kindly  present  more  anathemas  than  any  other  Pope. 

"  You  are  an  infidel." 

"  You're  a  bigot !  Arn't  you  ashamed  to  be  calling 
names,  you  old  hypocrite?" 

In  this  debate  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  bigotry  with  the  big- 
otry of  the  past,  a  printer  might  fitly  misprint  the  "pros 
and  cons,"  "  pigs  and  cows."  It  is  like  the  English  lady 
who  criticised  an  American  friend  for  saying,  at  a  mistake 
in  croquet,  "  What  a  horrid  scratch,"  and  when  asked 
what  would  have  been  better,  replied,  "  You  might  have 
said,  '  What  a  beastly  fluke.' "  It  is  not  strange  that  the 
people  will  not  elect  to  represent  them  in  politics,  one  who 
so  audaciously  misrepresents  them,  as  does  Mr.  Ingersoll 
in  nearly  every  attempt  to  declare  the  belief  of  Christians. 

Misrepresenting  Bible  Passages. 

Dr.  Ryder,  Prof.  Swing,  and  Dr.  Herford,  have  abund- 
antly shown  his  numerous  and  inexcusable  misrepresenta- 
tions of  Bible  passages,  to  which  may  be  added  another 
more  atrocious,  if  possible,  the  implication  that  the  perse- 
cutions of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  the  adulteries  of  Solomon, 
are  a  part  of  the  Christian  system,  and  also  that  Jephthah 
really  killed  his  daughter  as  a  sacrifice,  which  the  Bible 
does  not  declare,  nor  any  Christian  believe,  and  the  mis- 
interpretation of  the  passage  about  women  keeping  silence 
in  the  churches,  which  the  Christian  Church  of  to-day  con- 
siders of  only  temporary  force,  a  command  to  Corinth,  and 
not  to  Christendom,  no  more  binding  upon  us  than  Paul'* 
request  that  Timothy  should  bring  his  cloak  that  was  left 


W.  F.  C 'RAFTS1  REPLY.  15 

at  Troas.  It  is  a  kindred  misrepresentation  to  say  the 
assertion  that  those  who  tortured  the  martyrs  were  the 
same  ones  who  made  the  Bible — an  assertion  which  his- 
tory clearly  refutes,  as  the  Old  Testament  was  ar- 
ranged in  its  present  form  388  B.  C.,  and  the  New 
Testament  was  collected  as  it  is  at  present  before  the  days 
of  persecution  by  the  church  began. 

It  is  also  a  misrepresentation,  not  only  of  the  Bible,  out 
of  the  common  principles  of  interpretation  in  every 
department  of  literature,  to  intimate  that  an  explanation 
of  passages  as  poetic  and  figurative,  is  unfair  and  begging 
the  question.  Suppose  we  should  put  a  literal  interpreta- 
tion upon  the  tropical  figures  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  eloquence, 
and  when  he  speaks  of  the  sun's  rays  "  as  arrows  from  the 
quiver  of  the  sun,"  declare  him  an  ignorant  idolator,  who 
thinks  the  sun  an  intelligent  being  who  has  caught  the 
passion  for  archery. 

Sun  and  Moon  Standing  Still. 

It  is  equally  absurd  for  him  to  interpret  the  poem  about 
the  sun  and  moon  standing  still  by  the  rules  of  prose.  Mr. 
Ingersoll  also  says,  poetically:  "Think  of  that  wonderful 
chemistry  by  which  bread  was  changed  into  the  divine 
tragedy  of  Harnlet."  Suppose  we  should  interpret  that 
sentence  as  fact  rather  than  figure,  and  say  that  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  believes  that  by  the  combination  of  certain  liquids  and 
solids  in  the  chemist's  retort  this  marvelous  literary  pro- 
duction was  created!  It  would  be  quite  as  reasonable  as 
to  insist  upon  absolute  literalness  in  the  bold  figures  of 
Oriental  eloquence  and  poetry. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  also  misrepresents  the  Christian's  Sunday 
in  the  home,  speaking  of  it  as  "  a  day  too  good  for  a  child 
to  be  happy  in,"  saying:  "  The  idea,  that  any  God  would 
hate  to  hear  a  child  laugh."  We  all  know  (?)  that  in  the 


16  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

Christian  homes  of  to-day  the  smiles  and  laughter  of 
childhood  are  strictly  forbidden,  and  any  one  who  smiles  in 
church  is  carried  out  by  the  police  (?). 

Hell. 

Especially  does  Mr.  Ingersoll  continually  and  grossly 
misrepresent  Christianity  in  regard  to  the  conditions  by 
which  men  are  believed  to  bring  themselves  to  Hell.  Hear 
him:  "  It  is  infinitely  absurd  to  suppose  that  a  God  would 
address  a  communication  to  intelligent  beings,  and  yet 
make  it  a  crime,  to  be  punished  in  eternal  flames,  for  them 
to  use  their  intelligence  for  the  purpose  of  understanding 
His  communication.  Neither  can  they  show  why  any  one 
should  be  punished,  either  in  this  world  or  another,  for 
acting  honestly  in  accordance  with  reason;  and  yet  a  doc- 
trine with  every  possible  argument  against  it  has  been, 
and  still  is,  believed  and  defended  by  the  entire  orthodox 
world.  If  I  should  say  ninety -nine  in  a  hundred  go.  down 
to  Hell,  I  should  have  the  support  of  the  entire  orthodox 
world.  You  can  see  for  yourselves  the  justice  of  damn- 
ing a  man  if  his  parents  happened  to  baptize  him  in  the 
wrong  way.  Think  of  a  God  who  will  damn  his  children 
for  the  expression  of  an  honest  thought!" 

Few,  if  any,  intelligent  Christians  teach  that  a  man  must 
accept  their  denominational  creed  in  all  its  details  in  order 
to  be  saved,  as  the  careless  critics  of  Christianity  so  often 
assert,  but  rather  all  evangelical  Christians  repeat  the  New 
Testament  conditions  of  salvation,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,"  and  declare  nega- 
tively, not  as  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  said  by 
infidels,  that  all  who  do  not  believe  will  not  be  saved,  but 
rather  in  the  words  of  Martin  Luther,  "  No  man  shall  die 
in  his  sins,  except  him  who,  through  disbelief,  thrusts  from 
him  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  which  in  the  name  of  Jesus  is 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  17 

offered  him."  It  is  the  firm  of  Ignorance  and  Bigotry  that 
declare  that  evangelical  Christianity  teaches  that  a  man  can 
not  be  saved  who  does  not  believe  in  its  statement  of  the 
Trinity  and  its  interpretations  of  the  Bible. 

He  also  utterly  misrepresents  the  Christian  conception 
of  saving  faith  as  ignoring  reason  and  action,  both  of  which 
it  includes,  and  as  resting  chiefly  on  a  book  or  a  creed  as 
its  end,  rather  than  on  the  person,  Christ.  Every  church 
teaches  that  intelligent  faith  and  faithfulness  toward  Christ 
(not  creeds  in  detail)  is  the  condition  of  salvation.  "  Faith," 
says  Bishop  "Wightman,  "believes  on  competent  testi- 
mony what  it  could  not  otherwise  know."  Or,  as  Dr. 
Arnold  says:  "  Faith  is  reason  leaning  on  God."  Reason 
is  the  foundation  of  belief. 

The  Present  vs.  the  Future. 

Another  of  the  almost  countless  misrepresentations  of 
religion  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  is  the  frequent  statement  that 
Christianity  is  wholly  devoted  to  the  future,  and  ignores  man's 
present  needs,  which  reminds  us  that  it  was  Thomas  Paine 
(?)  and  not  the  Bible  that  said,  "Pure  religion  and  unde- 
filed  before  God  the  Father,  is  this,  to  visit  the  fatherless 
and  the  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  himself 
unspotted  from  the  world."  And  you  have  all  observed 
that  the  organized  societies  and  benevolences,  by  which 
orphans,  and  the  aged,  and  the  helpless,  are  aided  in  asy- 
lums and  refuges,  were  not  (?)  established  by  this  Chris- 
tianity which  "  ignores  man's  present  needs,  and  devotes 
itself  exclusively  to  the  future."  Christian  ministers  never 
preach  on  combining  works  with  faith,  or  showing  charac- 
ter by  conduct,  or  loving  their  neighbors  as  themselves. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  declares  that  a  little  restitution  is  better  than 
a  great  deal  of  repentance,  and  we  have  noticed  that  when 
Ingersoll  has  delivered  a  lecture  or  two  in  our  large  cities, 


18  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

those  among  his  hearers  who  have  defrauded  others  have, 
at  once,  begun  the  work  of  restitution  ( ?)  by  sending  back 
the  money  they  had  stolen  from  employers,  creditors  and 
customers.  (?)  Mr.  Moody,  who  preaches  repentance  as 
well  as  restitution,  of  course  (?)  has  no  such  results  follow- 
ing his  work,  as  he  proclaims  the  Christianity  whose  entire 
interest  is  in  the  future  life.  (?)  You  smile  at  this  practical 
test  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theory,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we 
have  no  record  of  a  single  instance  where  one  of  his  lectures 
has  led  to  the  restitution  of  stolen  property;  while  such 
cases  are  constantly  occurring  in  connection  with  the  work 
of  Mr.  Moody  and  other  Christians.  Several  very  notable 
ones  have  come  Tinder  my  own  immediate  notice. 

It  is  an  equally  astounding,  barefaced  misrepresentation, 
or  to  put  it  in  fewer  letters,  false,  when  he  states  that  all  of 
the  orthodox  religion  of  the  day  is  Calvinistic.  Part  of 
the  so-called  Calvinistic  churches  are  not  Calvinistic  in  the 
usual  sense  of  the  word,  and  we  had  fondly  dreamed  that 
there  was  such  a  body  of  Christians  as  Methodists  who  are 
distinctly  anti-Calvinistic,  and  hold  the  first  place  in  num- 
bers among  Protestant  Churches  in  America. 

It  is  also  a  misrepresentation  to  say,  "  Whoever  thinks 
he  has  found  it  all  out,  he  is  orthodox,"  for  every  orthodox 
pulpit  constantly  preaches  the  duty  of  growth,  intellectual 
and  spiritual.  Mr.  Ingersoll  declares  that  Protestants  to- 
day would  persecute,  as  in  the  past,  if  they  had  the  power, 
a  statement  in  which  he  assumes  the  role  of  the  prophet, 
and  shows  the  profundity  of  his  insight  into  the  spirit  of 
Christianity  to-day,  which  binds  up  the  broken-hearted 
and  ministers  to  the  troubled  and  sorrowing.  It  is  cunning 
sophistry  to  say  that  every  one  is  opposed  to  the  union  of 
Church  and  state,  because  they  know  that  the  Church 
could  not  be  trusted  with  power,  a  statement  which  obtains 
its  force  by  suppressing  the  very  important  fact  that  the 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  19 

Church  when  united  with  political  power  draws  into  itself 
unprincipled  politicians,  and  becomes  entirely  a  different 
body  through  the  opportunities  it  offers  to  selfishness  and 
ambition.  It  is  also  a  misrepresentation  to  say  that  "  Prot- 
estants stand  up  for  Protestant  persecutors  of  the  past,'r 
for  all  Protestant  churches  of  to-day  condemn  the  burning 
of  Servetus  and  such  acts  as  much  as  any  one.  It  is  also 
a  misrepresentation  by  holding  back  half  the  truth  to  tell 
us  of  that  base  or  mistaken  element  of  the  Church  that 
made  the  rack  and  not  of  that  other  noble  element  of  the 
Church  that  was  upon  the  rack,  for  the  martyrs  were  sel- 
dom if  ever  infidels. 

Ingersoll's  Horrible  Estimate  of  Truth. 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  recent  lecture  on  "  Skulls,"  twice 
said  that  truth  was  not  worth  a  little  suffering,  that  one 
had  better  lie  or  recant  than  suffer  a  little  pain,  or  lose  a 
drop  of  blood.  He  would  "  turn  Judas  Iscariot  to  his  own 
soul  "  to  save  a  thumb.  This  significant  item  as  to  his 
whole  estimate  of  truth  helps  us  to  account  for  the  whole- 
sale manufacture  of  falsehoods  in  his  lectures. 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  most  gross  misrepresentation  is  the 
habitual  custom  of  telling  only  one  side  of  a  fact,  quoting 
difficult  Bible  passages  but  never  sublime  ones,  bad  cus- 
toms of  the  Church  but  never  good  ones,  defects  in  Chris- 
tians but  never  excellences.  When  Mr.  Ingersoll  speaks 
of  "  a  lawyer  whipping  his  child  for  holding  back  part  of 
the  truth,"  he  describes  his  own  partisan  and  one-sided 
method,  as  Professor  Swing  has  shown,  attacking  Christian- 
ity as  the  hired  attorney  of  infidelity,  or  the  hired  cam- 
paigner of  the  anti-Christian  party  who  is  to  present  only 
one  side.  This,  too,  from  a  man  who  claims  that  infidelity 
nnfetters  thought  and  broadens  mind. 


20  MISTAKES  OF  1NQERSOLL. 

The  Bible  the  Best  of  Books,  and  Christ  the  Best  ot  Men. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  also  misrepresents  the  differences  among 
the  various  forms  of  Christianity.  All  men  of  broad 
scholarship  of  the  last  and  best  century  -who  have  written 
on  religion,  both  skeptics  and  Christians,  agree  on  two 
things — the  Bible  as  the  best  of  books,  and  Christ  as  the 
best  of  men.  So  much  at  least  may  be  said  to  be  indorsed 
by  all  scholarship,  and  when  a  man  rests  down  upon  these 
two  truths  as  proved  and  established,  and  follows  them  out 
into  the  truths  to  which  they  lead,  he  will  not  be  likely  to 
go  far  astray,  for  if  Christ  is  confessedly  the  greatest  and 
best  of  men,  the  "Teacher  sent  from  God,"  then  His 
teachings  are  to  be  accepted,  and  those  teachings  are  the 
foundations  of  all  essential  Christianity;  and  if  the  Bible 
is  the  best  of  books,  the  moral  and  spiritual  guide  of  man, 
then  its  teachings  are  to  be  carefully  read  and  deeply 
regarded,  and  all  who  take  this  book  as  life's  guide  book 
will  be  led  into  all  truths  of  Christianity  that  are  funda- 
mental and  important. 

All  Christians,  Romanists  and  Protestants,  agree  that 
Christ  is  the  living  embodiment  and  pattern  of  Christian 
manhood,  and  that  the  Bible,  at  least,  contains  the  "  Word 
of  God."  All  evangelical  Christians  agree  on  that  broad 
and  simple  platform  of  the  Apostles  Creed,  and  declare 
not  "many,"  but  one  way  to  Heaven,  and  that  not  by 
"believing  an  incomprehensible  creed,"  but  by  faith  and 
faithfulness  of  intellect,  will,  heart  and  life,  toward  the 
person,  Jesus  Christ.  Two  quotations  fairly  represent  all 
the  evangelical  churches  on  this  matter.  Bishop  Whipple, 
an  Episcopalian,  recently  remarked,  "  As  the  grave  grows 
nearer,  my  theology  is  growing  strangely  simple,  and  it 
begins  and  ends  with  Christ,  as  the  only  refuge  for  the 
lost."  Dr.  Alexander,  of  Princeton,  a  Presbyterian,  when 


W.  F.  CRAFTS1  REPLY,  21 

dyiag  said;  "All  my  theology  is  reduced  to  this  narrow 
compass,  '  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
ners.''  Mr.  Ingersoll,  misrepresents  the  most  familiar 
facts  when  he  says,  "  Just  in  proportion  as  the  human  race 
has  advanced,  the  church  has  lost  power.  There  is  no 
exception  to  this  rule."  It  is  a  fact  so  familiar  that  every 
intelligent  child  knows  it,  that  Christianity  was  never  so 
powerful  in  the  world,  as  to-day — never  had  so  many  fol- 
lowers. By  the  multiplied  agencies  of  church  work,  six 
thousand  are  converted  per  day — two  Pentecosts  every 
twenty-four  hours. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  misrepresents  not  only  the  Bible  and 
church  history,  by  leaving  out  all  that  would  not  help  his 
theories,  and  stating  one  half  the  truth,  but  he  also  mis- 
represents the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  "retiring 
God  from  politics,"  as  if  the  words  were  not  there,  "the 
station  to  which  the  laws  of  nature,  and  nature's  God  entitle 
them,"  "All  men  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain, inalienable  rights  " — "  and  for  the  support  of  this 
declaration,  and  in  a  firm  reliance  upon  Divine  Providence, 
we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives,  our  fortunes, 
and  our  sacred  honor."  It  is  surely  infinitely  absurd  to 
expect  a  man  broadly  and  truly  to  represent  us  in  politics, 
who  so  inexcusably  and  grossly  misrepresents  us  in  religion. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

Something   New  if  True — Infidelity  the  Essential  Factor  in  Pro- 
gressive   Civilization — But    Coleridge,    Wm.    H.    Seward, 
Bismarck,  and  other  great  Statesmen  can  not  see  it — 
Civilization  goes   only  with  Christianity. 

The  fourth  article  in  Ingersollism  is  as  follows:  "  The 
civilization  of  this  country  is  not  the  child  of  faith,  but  of 
unbelief — the  result  of  free  thought.  But  for  the  efforts 
of  a  few  brave  infidels,  the  church  would  have  taken  the 


22  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL,          . 

world  back  to  the  midnight  of  barbarism."  How  ignorant 
we  have  all  been!  Luther,  who  led  Europe  out  of  the 
Dark  Ages,  was  not,  it  seems,  a  child  of  faith,  but  of  free 
thought  (?)  and  Paul  also,  who  brought  civilization  into 
barbarous  Europe,  peopled  with  savage  tribes,  as 
described  by  Julius  Csesar  in  his  Commentaries.  The 
transformation  of  savage  Gaul  and  Britain  into  civilized 
France  and  England  was  accomplished  by  the  efforts  of 
«  unbelief."  (?) 

Long  ago,  Christianity  had  a  contest  with  Atheism,  Pan- 
theism, and  Culture,  as  to  which  was  the  best  civilizer. 
Christianity  selected  Europe,  and  gave  the  other  three  con- 
testants Asia,  with  several  centuries  the  start.  Atheism, 
or  Buddhism,  which  ignores  all  spiritual  things  and  devotes 
itself  to  the  present  life,  has  operated  for  thousands  of 
years  in  India.  Pantheism,  or  Brahminism,  made  its 
experiment  in  the  same  country;  and  Culture  obtained 
exclusive  control  of  China,  ruling  both  church  and  state. 
As  a  result,  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Ingersoll  's  theory,  these 
elements  of  Ingersollism  have  developed  a  lofty  civiliza- 
tion (?)  in  China  and  India,  given  education  to  woman, 
torn  away  the  veil  of  her  slavish  seclusion,  made  her  the 
equal  of  man,  treated  female  infants  as  honorably  as  the 
boys,  developed  a  high  morality  in  the  community, 
and  supplied  the  world  with  its  standard  literature,  its 
foremost  science,  and  its  chief  inventions.(?)  On  the  other 
hand,  Christianity  came  into  barbarous  Europe  a  dozen 
centuries  later,  caused  the  degradation  and  enslavement  of 
women  and  children,  (?)  repressed  scientific  investigation,  (?) 
prevented  invention,  (?)  checked  thought,  (?)  and  thus  hin- 
dered literary  activity,  and,  by  the  barbarism  of  the  Bible, 
"  brought  bondage  to  man,  woman,  and  child  "  in  body  and 
brain.(?)  If  the  facts  do  not  correspond  to  these  legitimate 
deductions  from  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theories  as  to  the  effect  of 


W.  F.  VltAJfTff  REPLY.  33 

atheistic  culture,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Christianity,  on  the 
other,  upon  national  life,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  facts. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  says  much  against  the  wars  of  Christian 
nations.  He  forgets  that  peace  societies  and  arbitration 
were  never  known  outside  of  Christianity,  and  that  wars  in 
Christian  lands  are  the  gradually  disappearing  remains  of 
previous  barbarism.  He  talks  of  science  and  invention  as 
opening  up  this  era!  How  does  it  happen  that  all  this  is 
in  Christian  rather  than  in  heathen  lands?  He  talks  of 
charity  and  benevolence  of  infidels!  "Why  is  it  that  all 
benevolent  societies  are  Christian,  and  that  Thomas  Paine 
halls  can  not  be  supported  ?  He  talks  of  liberty  of  speech 
and  thought  and  government!  Why  is  it  that  such  liberty 
is  only  found  in  Christian  countries?  He  has  much  to  say 
of  the  barbarous  age  of  dug-outs,  tom-toms,  and  wooden 
plows!  Has  he  not  seen  in  the  World's  Expositions  these 
very  things  as  representing  nations  to-day,  that  have  not 
risen  from  their  primitive  degradation  and  ignorance 
because  Christianity  has  not  yet  reached  them? 

As  to  the  relation  of  the  Bible  to  civilization,  Samuel 
Taylor  Coleridge  declares  that  "  fo»  more  than  a  thousand 
years  the  Bible,  collectively  taken,  has  gone  hand  in  hand 
with  civilization,  science,  law,  in  short,  with  moral  and 
intellectual  cultivation,  always  supporting,  and  often  lead- 
ing the  way." 

William  II.  Seward  says,  uThe  whole  hope  of  human 
progress  is  suspended  on  the  ever-growing  influence  of  the 
Bible." 

Bismarck  "utters  a  similar  sentiment,  as  quoted  in  his 
recent  biography:  "How,  without  faith  in  a  revealed 
religion,  in  a  God  who  wills  what  is  good,  in  a  Supreme 
Judge,  and  a  future  life,  men  can  live  together  harmoniously 
— *5ach  doing  his  duty  and  letting  every  one  else  to  do  his — 
I  '>  not  understand."  Similar  sentiments  are  uttered  by 


24  v   MISTAKES  OF  INGEHSOLL. 

the  leading  statesmen  of  all  lands,  the  unanimous  verdict 
of  statesmanship  being  that  civilization  can  not  be  carried 
forward  without  Christianity. 

ARTICLE    V. 

Marvelous   Power    of  Time   and   Circumstance — Tragic  Effect  01 

Iso-thermal   Lines — Peoria  Mud   Necessarily  the  Seventh 

Heaven  as  Zngersoll  Sees  it. 

The  fifth  article  of  Ingersollisin  is,  that  gods  and  men 
are  but  evolutions  of  matter  and  circumstance,  the  differ- 
ence between  heathen  gods  and  the  Christian's  God  being 
the  result  of  a  difference  in  their  worshippers,  and  the  dif- 
ference in  men  being  the  result  of  varying  soils  and  sur- 
roundings. He  says  :  "  No  god  was  ever  in  advance  of  the 
nation  that  created  him."  In  answer  to  this  last  statement, 
which  is  true,  of  course,  of  all  imaginary  deities,  but  not  of 
the  One  True  God,  it  is  only  necessary  to  ask  any  candid 
and  intelligent  man  to  read  the  description  of  God  given 
in  the  Bible,  where  both  Testaments  declare  Him  to  be 
"merciful  and  gracious,  long  suffering  and  abundant  in 
goodness  and  truth,  but  will  by  no  means  spare  the  guilty," 
and  then  say  whether  this  God  is  nothing  more  than  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  stiff-necked  and  perverse  people  who  held  to  this 
conception  of  Deity.  The  fact  is,  God  as  described  in  the 
Bible  is  infinitely  loftier  and  purer  than  the  Jewish  people, 
or  any  people  of  any  age.  It  is  still  more  absurd,  if  pos- 
sible, for  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  assert  that  "  men  are  but  the 
creatures  of  their  surroundings,  made  what  they  are  wholly 
by  material  causes,  such  as  soil  and  climate."  It  is  one  of 
the  characteristic  contradictions  of  history,  such  as  are  found 
so  frequently  in  Mr.  Ingersoll's  lectures,  when  he  asserts 
that  great  minds  have  never  been  found  except  in  the  "  lands 
of  respectable  winters,"  with  the  intimation  that  no  great 
achievements  in  art  or  literature  are  possible  in  warm 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  25 

Oriental  lands.  As  if  Babylon,  and  Nineveh,  and  Egypt 
had  not  been  in  early  ages  the  universities  of  the  world. 
Carlyle  must  have  been  very  much  deceived  when  he  declared 
Job  of  the  Oriental  land  of  Uz  to  be  the  greatest  poet  the 
world  has  known.  Mohammed  of  those  warm  lands  was 
certainly  great,  even  though  wrong,  and  scores  of  others, 
equally  eminent,  uJght  be  mentioned,  although,  of  course, 
it  is  evident  that  greatness  of  men  or  peoples  in  tropical 
lands  is  rather  in  spite  of  circumstances  than  by  their  help. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  lecture  on  "Man,  Woman,  and 
Child,"  speaking  of  one  of  these  warm  countries  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  all,  says:  "You  might  go  there  with  five 
thousand  Congregational  preachers,  five  thousand  deacons, 
five  thousand  professors  in  colleges,  five  thousand  of  the 
solid  men  of  Boston  and  their  wives,  settle  them  all,  and 
you  will  see  the  second  generation  riding  upon  a  mule  bare- 
back, no  shoes,  a  grapevine  whip,  with  a  rooster  under  each 
arm  going  to  a  cock  fight  on  Sunday.  Such  is  the  influence 
of  climate."  But  like  most  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theories,  this 
one  is  unfortunately  the  direct  opposite  of  facts.  The 
Sandwich  Islands  have  all  these  disadvantages  of  climate, 
and  fifty  years  ago  were  plunged  in  the  deepest  barbarism, 
with  all  the  vices  of  savage  life;  but  to-day,  as  all  well- 
informed  persons  know,  they  are  as  truly  civilized  as  any 
land,  with  industries,  education,  protection  of  life  and 
property,  equal  to  what  is  found  in  our  own  favored  coun- 
try. And  this  is  all  due,  as  King  Kalikua  said  in  New 
Tork,  to  the  Christianizing  of  his  people.  Indeed,  Mr. 
Ingersoll  contradicts  his  own  theory  as  to  the  dependence 
of  the  individual  upon  surroundings  in  his  lectures  on 
Humboldt  and  Paine,  both  of  whom  he  represents  as 
becoming  great  in  spite  of  surroundings  that  would  natu- 
rally have  led  in  the  opposite  direction,  thus  involuntarily 
recognizing  something  in  man  deeper  than  mere  physical 
evolution. 


26  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

The  whole  absurd  theory  of  individuals  and  nations  being 
wholly  dependent  upon  soil,  and  climate,  and  surroundings 
for  their  character,  is  fairly  represented  in  the  following 
incident: 

"  Pa,"  said  a  little  six- year  old,  "  what  makes  me  grow  ?J> 

"  Why,  the  bread  and  potato  I  feed  you  with." 

"  Does  potatoes  make  our  pig  grow,  too?" 

"  Yes." 

"  Then,  what  makes  him  be  a  pig  and  me  be  a  boy?" 

That  boy's  simple  question  explodes  all  the  theories  of 
evolution. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

Law   is   Ingersoll's  God. 

The  sixth  article  of  Ingersollism  is,  u  I  believe  in  law,  the 
Almighty  maker  of  Heaven  and  earth."  One  might  ae 
well  say  that  the  United  States  Constitution  made  our 
country,  or  try  to  rule  the  land  by  laws  without  enforcers. 

That  the  universe  is  governed  according  to  a  system  of 
law  is  recognized  by  Christians  as  much  as  by  any  one,  and 
the  laws  of  the  Bible  are  not  new  arbitrary  enactments,  but 
recognitions  and  proclamations  of  that  part  of  the  law-sys- 
tem of  the  universe  that  relates  to  religion  and  morality. 
Laws  of  spirit  are  as  eternal  as  laws  of  matter.  Natural 
science  proclaims  the  latter,  religious  science  the  former. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

Liberty  and  Infidelity — What  De  Tocqueville  Says  About  it. 

The  seventh  article  is  made  up  of  the  following  statements: 
"  All  religions  are  inconsistent  with  mental  freedom.  The 
doubter,  the  investigator,  the  infidel,  have  been  the  saviours 
of  liberty." 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  when  talking  of  liberty  contradicts  what 
he  himself  has  said  of  law,  and  fails  to  remind  his  hearers 


W.  P.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  27 

and  readers  that  the  circle  of  law  bounds  on  every  side  the 
privileges  of  liberty,  that  one  has  liberty  only  within  the 
range  of  propriety,  and  that  all  beyond  that  is  license.  He 
also  forgets  the  very  evident  fact  that  the  prevailing  ideas  of 
personal  liberty  in  the  world  are  due  to  the  general  dissem- 
ination, by  Christianity,  of  the  truth  that  a  man  is  a  soul  as 
well  as  a  body.  Wherever  men  are  regarded  as  mere  phys- 
ical beings,  with  no  life  deeper  than  the  bodily  life,  the 
stronger  will  enslave  the  weaker — woman,  child  and  captive. 
When  the  idea  that  each  man  is  an  immortal  soul  takes 
hold  upon  man,  with  it  there  comes  the  idea  of  individual 
rights.  If  Ingersollism  should  ever  persuade  a  civilized 
people  that  man  has  no  soul,  this  form  of  bondage  of  the 
weaker  to  the  stronger  will  be  resumed.  Not  soil,  but  soul, 
is  the  secret  of  liberty. 

Even  Mr.  Frothingham  recently  declared  that  the  Bible  is 
a  democratic  book,  and  that  we  get  out  of  it  our  ideas  of 
equality.  He  remembered  what  Mr.  Ingersoll  seems  to  for- 
get, that  all  through  the  Bible,  the  idea  of  personal  and  relig- 
ious liberty  is  found,  especially  in  those  words  of  the  Apostles 
to  the  rulers  who  attempted  to  tyrannize  over  their  con- 
sciences, "  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man,r  frhich 
has  fitly  been  termed  the  concisest  of  all  statement?  of  the 
principles  of  personal  liberty.  We  may  show  this  relation  of 
religion  to  liberty  in  the  words  of  the  greatest  modern 
writer  upon  such  questions,  De  Tocqueville,  who  says, 
"  Bible  Christianity  is  the  companion  of  liberty  in  all  its 
conflicts,  the  cradle  of  its  infancy,  and  the  divine  source  of 
its  claims." 

ARTICLE  VIII. 
Woman — Ingersoll's  Theory  at  Variance  with  Fads. 

The  eighth  article  of  Ingersollism,  is  in  regard  to  woman, 
and  is  as  follows:  "As  long  as  woman  regards  the  Bible 
as  the  charter  of  her  ri gilts,  she  will  be  the  slave  of  man. 


28  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

The  Bible  was  not  written  by  a  woman.  "Within  its  lid* 
there  is  nothing  but  humiliation  and  shame  for  her." 
,  You  have  all  doubtless  observed  that  in  heathen  coun- 
tries, where  the  Bible  has  not  jet  come  with  its  enslaving 
(?)  influence  woman  has  (?)  liberty  and  honor,  and  educa- 
tion, and  opportunities  of  public  activity  and  benevolence 
(?),  but  in  Christian  lands  she  is  veiled,  degraded,  shut  out 
of  sight  and  restrained  from  education  (?).  I  have  always 
observed,  as  a  pastor,  that  it  is  the  religious,  and  church- 
going  husbands  that  tyrannize  over  their  wives  as  "bosses,** 
and  deny  them  their  liberties  of  conscience,  and  other 
rights.  (?) 

You  smile  at  the  absurd  statement,  knowing  that  the 
"heathen  at  home,"  who  as  husbands  are  harsh  and  brutal 
to  the  wives  they  have  promised  to  cherish,  are  frequently 
ardent  believers  in  Ingersollism,  and  seldom  in  any  way 
connected  with  even  nominal  Christianity,  while  every 
school  boy  is  familiar  with  the  fact  that  woman,  in  all 
except  Christian  lands,  is  hardly  better  than  a  slave,  nota- 
bly so,  in  that  land  where  Ingersollism  under  the  name  of 
Buddhism  has  the  controlling  influence.  Mr.  Ingersoll 
utters  many  true  sentiments  about  the  family,  but  all  of 
these  he  learned  of  Christianity,  not  from  China,  or  Egypt. 

ARTICLE    IX. 

Ingersoll's  Theory  of  Childhood — Some  of  His  Little  Stories — The 

Whole    Subject   Carefully  Examined — Significant  Incident 

in  the  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 

The  ninth  article  of  Ingersollism  is  a  theory  of  child- 
nood  which  attacks  the  principles  of  sound  government  and 
health  even  more  than  religion :  "  Do  not  have  it  in  your 
mind  that  you  must  govern  them ;  that  they  (children)  must 
obey.  Let  your  children  eat  what  they  desire.  They  know 
what  they  wish  to  eat.  Let  them  begin  at  which  end  of 
the  dinner  they  please." 


W.  F.  CEAFT&  HE  PLY.  29 

Such  a  tlieory  is  worthy  of  nothing  more  than  the  smile 
with  which  you  hear  it.  It  is  all  answered  in  the  following 
representative  fact  of  childhood:  A  little  bit  of  a  girl 
wanted  more  and  more  buttered  toast,  till  she  was  told  that 
too  much  would  make  her  sick.  Looking  Avistfnlly  at  the 
dish  for  a  moment,  she  thought  she  saw  a  way  out  of  her 
difficulty,  and  exclaimed,  "  "Well,  give  me  annuzer  piece, 
and  send  for  the  doctor!" 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  connection  with  his  theory  of  child- 
hood, often  refers  to  the  fact,  that  he  leaves  his  pocket- 
book  around  where  his  children  can  help  themselves  to 
whatever  they  wish,  and  urges  the  same  course  upon  all 
parents.  It  is  said  that  one  of  the  lecturer's  admirers,  being 
convinced  that  this  was  the  correct  theory,  determined  to 
give  up  punishing  his  child,  and  try  the  new  plan.  Accord- 
ingly, he  said  to  his  boy,  "John,  I  am  convinced  I  have 
been  taking  the  wrong  course  to  try  to  make  you  a  better 
boy.  I  am  going  to  trust  you  more,  and  give  up  whip- 
pings. I  am  going  away  for  a  few  days,  and  I  have  left 
my  pocket-book  in  the  top  drawer  of  the  bureau.  Help 
yourself  to  money  whenever  you  need  it."  After  a  few 
days  the  father  returned  to  his  home,  late  at  night.  As  he 
opened  the  door  he  stumbled  over  a  large  canoe  in  the 
entry,  and  was  then  attacked  by  a  large  bull-dog  that  his 
boy  had  bought.  Entering  the  boy's  room,  he  found  it 
hung  round  with  guns,  and  fishing  poles,  and  daggers,  with 
another  canoe,  and  several  small  dogs — his  pocket-book  lying 
empty  on  the  top  of  the  bureau.  He  is  now  less  enthusi- 
astic in  regard  to  Ingersoll's  knowledge  of  domestic  gov-. 
eminent. 

The  leading  point  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  endeavors  to 
make  in  connection  with  his  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine  is 
that  the  Bible  shocks  a  child,  and,  therefore,  can't  be  trne. 
Tou  have  all  observed  how  much  children  are  shocked  as 


30  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

they  gather  about  the  mother's  knees  in  the  twilight,  and 
hear  her  tell  the  stories  of  Jesus,  and  Joseph,  and  Moses, 
and  Samuel,  and  Daniel  (?).  As  to  the  relation  of  the 
Bible  to  childhood  and  home  life,  let  me  quote  the  opinion 
of  several  eminent  men,  mostly  skeptics,  for  whom  even 
Mr.  Ingersoll  cherishes  the  highest  regard: 

Thomas  Jefferson,  speaking  of  the  Bible  and  home  life, 
says:  "  I  have  always  said,  and  always  will  say,  that  the 
studious  perusal  of  the  sacred  volume  will  make  better 
citizens,  better  fathers,  and  better  husbands." 

John  Quincy  Adams  says :  "  So  great  is  my  veneration 
for  the  Bible,  that  the  earlier  my  children  begin  to  read  it, 
the  more  confident  will  be  my  hopes  that  they  will  prove 
useful  citizens  to  their  country  and  respectable  members  of 
society.'1 

Theodore  Parker  says:  "  There  is  not  a  boy  on  the  hills 
of  ]^ew  England,  not  a  girl  born  in  the  filthiest  cellar  which 
disgraces  a  capital  in  Europe,  and  cries  to  God  against 
the  barbarism  of  modern  civilization;  not  a  boy  nor  a  girl 
all  Christendom  through,  but  their  lot  is  made  better  by 
that  great  book." 

Diderot,  the  French  philosopher  and  skeptic,- was  wont 
to  make  this  confession:  "No  better  lessons  than  those 
of  the  Bible  can  I  teach  my  child." 

Huxley,  in  an  address  upon  education,  says:  "I  have 
always  been  strongly. in  favor  of  secular  education,  in  the 
sense  of  education  without  theology;  but  1  must  confess  I 
have  been  no  less  seriously  perplexed  to  know  by  what 
'  practical  measures  the  religious  feeling,  which  is  the  essen- 
tial basis  of  conduct,  was  to  be  kept  up,  in  the  present 
utterly  chaotic  state  of  opinion  on  these  matters,  without 
the  use  of  the  Bible.  The  pagan  moralists  lack  life  and 
color,  and  even  the  noble  stoic,  Marcus  Aurelius,  is  too  high 
and  refined  for  an  ordinary  child.  Take  the  Bible  as  » 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY,  81 

whole,  make  the  severest  deductions  which  fair  criticism 
can  dictate,  and  there  still  remains  in  this  old  literature  a 
vast  residuum  of  moral  beauty  and  grandeur.  By  the  study 
of  what  other  book  could  children  be  so  humanized?  If 
Bible  reading  is  not  accompanied  by  constraint  and  solem- 
nity, I  do  not  believe  there  is  anything  in  which  children 
take  more  pleasure." 

What  would  "  shock  the  mind  of  a  child  "  would  be  to  hear 
Mr.  Ingersoll  excuse  them  for  telling  a  lie,  in  order  to 
escape  a  whipping.  "What  would  shock  a  child  would  be 
to  hear  Mr.  Ingersoll  uttering  profanity 

•  •  *  • 

What  would  shock  the  mind  of  a  child  would  be  to 
hear  Mr.  Ingersoll  telling  to  a  crowded  audience  with  a 
smile  of  approval  the  story  of  a  boy's  oath. 


Speaking  of  swearing  reminds  me  of  that  incident  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  calls  "  the  grandest 
man  ever  President  of  the  United  States,"  who  said  to  a 
person  sent  to  him  by  one  of  the  Senators,  and  who, 
in  conversation,  uttered  an  oath,  "  I  thought  the  Sen- 
ator had  sent  me  a  gentleman;  I  see  I  was  mistaken. 
There  is  the  door,  and  I  bid  you  good-day."  1  hold  in  my 
hand  the  last  report  of  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Pre- 
vention of  Cruelty  to  Children.  Of  course,  the  bruised  and 
beaten  little  ones,  here  described,  were  the  victims  of 
cruelty  in  Christian  homes  (?).  Their  fathers  and  mothers 
had  taken  too  much  religion  ( ?),  had  become  brutalized  by 
reading  the  Bible  (?),  and  hence  abused  the  children  by 
their  own  fireside  until  the  law  was  compelled  to  interfere 
for  their  defense  (?). 


82  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

In  my  work  as  a  member  of  the  Citizen's  League  for  the 
suppression  of  the  sale  of  liquors  to  minors,  I  have  noticed 
that  this  supreme  cruelty  to  children — selling  them  in  their 
immature  years  the  liquors  that  make  them  self-destroyers, 
violators  of  the  public  peace,  and  candidates  for  drunkards' 
graves — is  perpetrated  by  Christian  men,  not  by  the  infidels 
who  applaud  so  lustily  at  Mr.  Ingersoll's  lectures  (?).  Here 
I  am  reminded  of  the  published  report,  which  seems  well 
authenticated,  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  childhood  lived  in 
one  of  those  exceptional  homes  where  nominal  Christianity 
was  combined  with  harshness,  cruelty  and  bigotry.  If  so, 
this  would  be  some  slight  excuse  for  his  present  conduct, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  maturer  years  have  given  him 
abundant  opportunity  to  see  the  bright  and  sunny  side  of 
Christian  gentleness  in  other  homes.  And  there  are  no 
true  homes  that  do  not  owe  their  existence  to  the  influence 
of  Christianity  upon  the  family  relation. 

Having  myself  made  childhood  a  special  study  for  several 
years,  I  find  that  the  degree  of  recognition  given  to  the 
opinions  and  importance  of  childhood  in  various  ages  and 
countries,  is  exactly  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  Chris- 
tianity there,  children  being  scarcely  noticed  in  heathen 
lands,  either  in  poetry,  or  history,  or  ethics,  while  the  Bible 
religion  has  always  given  childhood  an  exceedingly  prom- 
inent place.  All  the  attention  given  to  the  education  and 
development  of  the  little  ones  is  but  the  starlight  that 
shines  down  upon  us  from  the  manger  of  the  God-child. 

ARTICLE  X. 

Ingersoll    Says    Christianity   Fetters   Thdught — The   Bible   and  a 
Host  of  Distinguished  Men  Say  Otherwise. 

The  tenth  article  of  Ingersollism  is  the  frequent  asser- 
tion that  Christianity  fetters  thought,  while  infidelity 
emancipates  it,  in  such  passages  as  these:  "  In  all 


W.  F.  CRAFTS1  REPLY. 

reason  lias  been  regarded  as  the  enemy  of  religion." 
gods  dreaded  education  and  knowledge  then  (in  the  time  of 
the  Garden  of  Eden)  just  as  they  do  now."  "For  ages 
a  deadly  conflict  has  been  waged  by  a  few  brave  men  oi 
thought  and  genius,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  great, 
ignorant,  religious  mass,  on  the  other.  The  few  have 
said:  'Think.'  The  many  have  said :  'Believe.'" 

In  order  to  ascertain  what  freedom  and  power  of  thought 
materialism  had  given  to  the  mind  of  Mr.  Ingersoll,  I 
made  special  examination  of  the  logic  in  the  lecture  on 
"  The  Gods,"  and  found  there,  in  a  very  short  time,  one  or 
more  specimens  of  all  the  fallacies  laid  down  in  the  text- 
books of  logic.  "  Waiter,"  said  John  Randolph,  at  a  cer- 
tain hotel,  "if  this  is  coffee,  bring  me  tea;  if  this  is  tea, 
bring  me  coffee-"  And  so  we  say,  if  this  is  the  "  power  oi 
thought,"  give  us  weakness. 

Instead  of  the  Bible  forbidding  us  to  think,  as  Inger- 
sollism  so  often  declares,  it  is  full  of  ringing  appeals  to 
"reason,"  "think,"  "consider,"  "ponder,"  "prove  aU 
things." 

Prov.  26 : 16 :  "  The  sluggard  is  wiser  in  his  own  'conceit  than  seven 
men  that  can  render  treason." 

Eccl.  7 : 25 :  "I  applied  mine  heart  to  know,  and  to  search,  and  to 
seek  out  wisdom,  and  the  reason  of  things,  and  to  know  the  wickedness 
of  folly,  even  of  foolishness  and  madness." 

Isa.  1 : 18 :  "  Come  now  and  let  us  reason  together,  saith  the  Lord,' 
though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  as  white  as  snow ;  though  they 
be  red  like  crimson,  they  shall  be  as  wool." 

Matt.  22 : 42 :    "  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?" 

Acts  17 :  2 :  "  Paul,  as  his  manner  was,  went  in  unto  them,  and  three 
Sabbath  days  reasoned  with  them  out  of  the  Scriptures." 

Acts  18:  4:  "  He  reasoned  in  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath,  and  per- 
suaded the  Jews  and  the  Greeks." 

Acts  18 : 19 :  "  And  he  came  to  Ephesus,  and  left  them  there ;  but  he 
himself  entered  into  the  synagogue  and  reasoned  with  the  Jews." 

Acts  24 : 25 :    "  And  as  he  reasoned  of  righteousness,  temperance,  and 
judgment  to  come,  Felix  trembled." 
8 


34  MISTAKES  OF  INOE11SOLL. 

Rom.  12:1:  "I  beseech  you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of 
God,  that  you  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable 
unto  God,  which  is  your  reasonable  service." 

Phil.  4:8:  "Finally,  brethren,  whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatso- 
ever things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things  are  j  ust,  whatsoever  things 
are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good 
report,  if  there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these 
things.'1 

1  Thess.  5 :  21 :     "  Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 

Let  us  look  into  biography,  and  make  a  practical  test  of 
this  theory  that  the  Bible  fetters  thought.  If  so,  those 
who  believe  and  love  it  will  not  be  strong  and  leading 
thinkers.  Let  us  apply  the  test  in  the  ranks  of  science. 

A  Cloud  of  Witnesses. 

Professor  Benjamin  Pierce,  of  Harvard  College,  has 
recently  completed  a  very  remarkable  course  of  lectures  at 
the  Lowell  Institute,  Boston,  on  "Ideality  in  Science." 
Professor  Pierce,  who  is  now  in  his  seventieth  year,  i$, 
perhaps,  the  most  eminent  mathematical  scholar  in  this 
country,  and  the  author  of  some  of  the  most  profound 
investigations  and  speculations  that  have  been  made  in  the 
realm  of  astronomical  science.  This  man  of  mighty  thought 
must  have  been  emancipated  and  inspired  by  infidelity  ( ?). 
This  scholar,  whose  mind  may  be  supposed  to  feed  on  fact, 
holds  an  unquestioning  faith  in  a  personal  God  and  the 
immortal  life. 

The  late  Professor  Henry,  of  the  Smithsonian  Institute, 
was  one  of  the  broadest  and  best  of  scientific  thinkers 
because  infidelity  gave  him  freedom  of  thought  (?).  No, 
he  was  a  sweet-spirited  Christian  in  his  daily  life. 

Sir  David  Brewster,  another  eminent  scientist,  said  of 
his  Christian  experience:  "I  have  had  this  light  for  many 
years,  and  oh!  how  bright  it  is  to  me." 

Professor  Silliman,  who  is  unsurpassed  in  his  scientific 


W.  F.  OR  AFT 8*  REPLY.  35 

department,  must  also  be  classed  under  the  head  of  "  the 
ignorant  religious  mass,"  for  he  was  another  of  the  very 
many  Christian  scientists,  whom  the  world  has  ignorantly(  ?) 
supposed  a  thinker,  in  spite  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theory  of 
faith  as  being  a  mental  bondage.  He  says:  "  I  can  truly 
declare  that,  in  the  study  and  exhibition  of  science  to  my 
pupils  and  fellow  men,  I  have  never  forgotten  to  give  all 
honor  and  glory  to  the  infinite  Creator — happy  if  I  might 
be  the  honored  interpreter  of  a  portion  of  his  works,  and 
of  the  beautiful  structure  and  beneficent  laws  discovered 
therein  by  the  labors  of  many  illustrious  predecessors." 
"We  might  add  scores  of  others  in  each  department  of  sci- 
ence, who  have  found  no  discord  between  the  Word  and 
world  of  God. 

Who  are  the  four  greatest  thinkers  in  the  realm  of  states- 
manship of  this  century?  Daniel  Webster,  Gladstone, 
Thiers,  and  Bismarck.  All  of  them,  of  course,  are  enabled 
to  be  thus  broad  and  prominent  as  national  thinkers  by  the 
power  of  infidelity  ( ?).  No,  each  one  of  them  is  most  posi- 
tive in  his  Christian  belief. 

Webster  declares  the  grandest  thought  which  ever  entered 
his  mind  was  that  of  "  personal  accountability  to  God." 

Gladstone  gives  much  of  time  and  attention  to  religious 
writing. 

Thiers  says,  in  his  last  days:  "I  often  invoke  that  God 
in  whom  I  am  happy  to  believe,  who  is  denied  by  fools  and 
ignorant  people,  but  in  whom  the  enlightened  man  finds 
his  consolation  and  hope." 

Bismarck  is  called,  in  derision,  "  the  God-fearing  man," 
in  reference  to  his  well-known  religious  principles.  (Busch's 
Bismarck,  p.  200). 

We  might  add  to  these  Charles  Sumner,  who  called 
Christianity  the  u  true  religion  "  and  "  our  faith,"  and  whose 
speeches  constantly  recognize  God  and  Christianity. 


M  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

Who  are  the  leading  literary  characters  of  the  century? 
Yictor  Hugo,  what  of  him  ?  Did  you  ever  read  his  chapter 
on  prayer  in  Les  Miserables,  and  his  grand  tribute  to 
immortality,  uttered  as  a  rebuke  to  a  company  of  French 
physicians,  a  few  years  ago?  Moore — have  you  read  his 
"  Paradise  and  the  Peri,"  the  Gospel  of  repentance,  and  do 
you  know  him  as  the  author  of  the  hymn,  "  Come,  ye  Dis- 
consolate?" Walter  Scott — have  you  read  his  translation 
of  "Dies  Irag,"  uttered  so  devoutly  in  his  last  days: 

"  Oh!  in  that  day,  that  dreadful  day, 
When  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away, 
Be  Thou,  oh  Christ,  the  sinner's  st  y, 
When  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  uway." 

And  Shakspeare,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoli  accounts  one  of 
the  grandest  of  human  minds,  was  great  enough  to  believe 
in  the  Bible.  And  so  Thackeray,  Whittier,  Dickens,  Gold- 
smith, Longfellow,  and  Irving  were  intellectual  believers  in 
Christianity. 

The  following  men,  also  lacking  the  freedom,  and  power 
of  thought  that  comes  by  materialism  (?)  became  mentally 
so  weak  (?)  that  they  declared,  in  varying  terms,  after  read- 
ing largely  in  all  departments  of  literature,  that  the  Bible 
is  the  best  book  in  the  world :  Sir  Walter  Scott,  Sir  Wil- 
liam Jones,  George  Gilfillan,  Milton,  Pollok,  Coleridge, 
Collins,  Bacon,  John  Adams,  Napoleon,  James  Freeman 
Clarke,  Lange,  Kitto,  Robertson.  And  Channing  put  the 
Gospels  where  these  others  place  the  whole  Bible — above 
all  other  literature. 

The  following  persons  strongly  commend  the  Bible  as  a 
whole:  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  Carlyle,  Dryden,  Young, 
Cowper,  Locke,  Newton,  Seward,  Dawson,  Franklin,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Bellows,  Bartol,  Theodore  Parker,  Rous- 
seau, Guizot,  Bunsen,  Story,  Webster,  Diderot,  Matthew 
Arnold,  and  Huxley. 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  tiEPLY.  37 

The  following  persons  among  many  others  declare  that 
they  found  in  the  Bible,  not  fetters  for  thought,  but  their 
strongest  inspiration  to  thought  :  Daniel  Webster,  Fisher 
A.mes,  Mitchell,  the  Astronomer,  Huskin  and  Goethe. 

It  is  evident  that  very  many  others  might  truly  have 
said  the  same,  including  Theodore  Parker  and  Mr.  Froth- 
ingham  and  other  skeptics,  whose  writings  show  plainly 
that  they  owe  their  beauties  of  style  to  a  familiarity  with 
the  Bible. 

Jesus  Christ. 

With  these  great  men  who  have  commended  the  Bible 
should  be  mentioned  one  who  is  confessed  by  Christians  and 
skeptics  the  greatest  and  best  of  men,  JESUS  CHRIST,  who 
used  the  Psalms  as  His  prayer  and  hymn  book,  and  always 
spoke  of  the  whole  Old  Testament  as  the  Eternal  Law  Book 
of  humanity.  There  is  not  time,  nor  is  it  necessary  now 
to  answer  in  detail  all  the  hard  questions  that  can  be  asked 
about  single  Bible  passages.  But  these  great  men  and 
Christ  saw  all  these  points  of  difficulty,  and  yet  accepted 
the  Bible  as  the  pre-eminent  book,  commending  it  to  the 
perusal  of  all  as  the  source  of  the  mind's  grandest  inspira- 
tions. Side  by  side  with  these  scores  of  the  world's  fore- 
most men  who  declare  the  Bible  the  best  of  books,  or 
strongly  commend  it,  or  point  to  it  as  the  source  of  their 
grandest  thoughts,  put  the  opinion  of  that  more  learned  (?), 
more  profound  (?),  more  unprejudiced  (?)  scholar  and  phi- 
losopher, Colonel  Ingersoll,  who  stands  almost  alone  among 
educated  men  in  strongly  condemning  the  Bible,  which  his 
bigotry  prints  with  a  small  "  b  "  in  spite  of  the  rules  of 
grammar,  and  describes  it  as  about  the  worst  book  of  the 
world,  in  these  words  among  others:  "If  men  will  read 
the  Bible  as  they  read  other  books,  they  will  be  amazed  that 
they  ever,  for  one  moment,  supposed  a  being  of  infinite 
wisdom  to  be  the  author  of  such  ignorance  and  of  such 


38  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERBOLL. 

atrocity.  The  Bible  burned  heretics,  built  dungeons, 
founded  the  inquisition,  and  trampled  upon  all  the  liberties 
of  men.  All  the  philosophy  of  the  Bible  would  not  make 
one  scene  in  Hamlet.  I  could  write  a  better  book  than  the 
Bible,  which  is  full  of  barbarism." 

Amazing  Ignorance  of  Infidels  Concerning  the  Scriptures — Hume's 

Ignorance  of  the  New  Testament  —  Tom  Paine 

Without  a  Bible. 

"  But  some  one  asks,  Are  there  not  other  eminent  men 
who  have  despised  and  condemned  the  Bible?  Most  cer- 
tainly, as  there  are  those  who  have  entered  their  protest 
against  almost  any  and  everything  mentionable.  It  is, 
nevertheless,  worthy  of  note  that,  in  most  instances,  those 
who  have  sought  the  more  resolutely  to  defame  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  those  who  are  comparatively  unacquainted 
with  them.  David  Hume,  distinguished  both  as  essayist 
and  historian,  standing  among  the  most  noted  of  modern 
skeptical  philosophers,  was  a  resolute  objector  of  the  Bible, 
but  was  notoriously  ignorant  of  its  contents.  Dr.  Johnson, 
in  conversation  with  several  literary  friends,  once  observed, 
in  his  usual,  direct,  and  unequivocal  manner,  that  no  hon- 
est man  could  be  a  deist,  because  no  man  could  be  so  after 
a  fair  examination  of  the  truths  of  Christianity.  When 
the  name  of  Hume  was  mentioned  to  him  as  an  exception 
to  his  remark,  he  replied:  'No,  sir;  Hume  once  owned  to 
a  clergyman  in  the  bishopric  of  Durham,  that  he  had  never 
read  even  the  New  Testament  with  attention.'  "* 

Let  us  cross-question  another  important  witness  as  to  his 
knowledge  of  the  book  against  which  he  offers  testimony. 
"We  ask  Thomas  Paine  as  to  his  familiarity  with  the  Bible, 
which  he  so  bitterly  condemns,  and  he  replies,  "  I  keep  no 
Bible."  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  sermon  preached  in  New 

*From  "  What  Noted  Men  Think  of  the  Bible." 


W.  F.  CRAFTS^  REPLY.  39 

York  City,  by  Rev.  "W.  F.  Hatfield,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Inger- 
soll's  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine,  in  which  reply,  with  abund- 
ant 'facts,  such  as  would  convince  a  court,  it  is  shown  con- 
clusively that  Thomas  Paine  was  vicious  and  corrupt  in  life, 
and  miserable  and  remorseful  in  death.  As  to  the  value  of 
Yoltaire's  testimony  against  Christianity,  Carlyle  declares  it 
worthless  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  sub- 
ject of  which  he  testifies.  He  says:  "  It  is  a  serious 
ground  of  offense  against  Yoltaire  that  he  intermeddled  in 
religion  without  being  himself,  in  any  measure,  religious; 
that,  in  a  word,  he  ardently,  and  with  long-continued  effort, 
warred  against  Christianity,  without  understanding,  beyond 
the  mere  superfices,  what  Christianity  was." 

There  are  also  a  class  of  specialists  who  are  quoted  against 
ihe  Bible,  and  who  manifest  a  hostility  to  it,  whose  testi- 
mony is  of  little  value  because  of  the  narrow  range  in 
which  they  have  studied,  making  them  authorities  only  in 
their  special  department.  Halley,  the  astronomer,  once 
avowed  his  skepticism  in  presence  of  Sir  Isaac  Kewton. 
The  venerable  man  replied:  "  Sir,  you  have  never  studied! 
these  subjects  and  I  have.  Do  not  disgrace  yourself  as  a, 
philosopher  by  presuming  to  judge  on  questions  you  have 
never  examined." 

Distributed  Ignorance  and  Concentrated  Hatred — Probable  Cause 
of  Ingersoll's  Infidelity. 

The  largest  proportion  of  skeptics,  however,  are  mere 
sophomores,  spoiled  with  a  little  learning  which  is  only 
**  distributed  ignorance,"  well  represented  by  a  precocious 
boy  of  fourteen,  whom  I  found  writing  an  essay  on  "  Mat- 
rimony,"/ and  who  left  it  during  my  call  to  argue  in  favor 
of  Ingersollism  and  against  the  Bible  (of  which  he  knew 
as  little  as  of  matrimony),  which  he  admitted  he  had  never 
read,  as  do  nearly  all  skeptics  when  questioned  on  this 


MISTAKES  OF  INGEliSOLL. 

The  bitterness  of  the  opposition  to  Christianity 
of  Mr.  lugersoll  and  other  infidels  is  explained  by  the  Earl 
of  Rochester,  who  was  converted  from  infidelity  and  -said, 
in  explanation  of  his  former  course  and  that  of  others:  "A 
bad  heart,  a  bad  heart  is  the  great  objection  against  the  Holy 
Book."  "  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart  "  (not  his  head) 
"  there  is  no  God."  The  bad  heart  is  father  to  the  infidel 
thought.  It  is  like  the  case  of  the  old  woman  who  broke 
her  looking-glass  because  it  showed  the  wrinkles  creeping 
into  her  fading  face.  Men  strive  to  break  the  Bible  glass 
that  shows  the  wrinkles  and  defects  of  character.  The- 
whole  appearance  and  tone  and  spirit  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  in 
his  lectures  is  suggestive  of  this  heart  hatred  against  the 
book  which  he  attacks,  "  kicks,"  "  hates,"  not  with  the 
calmness  of  logic,  but  with  the  bitterness  of  a  heart-hos- 
tility. Those  infidels  who  have  faithfully  examined  the 
Bible  have  usually  been  convinced  of  its  truth  and  con- 
verted to  Christianity.  Among  them,  such  distinguished 
names  as  Lord  Lyttleton,  Gilbert  West,  Soame  Jenyus, 
Bishop  Thompson,  and  at  least  a  score  of  notable  cases  in 
connection  with  Mr.  Moodj's  revival  meetings  in  England. 
"What  comparison,  let  us  ask,  will  the  number  of  cele- 
brated skeptics,  even  when  the  best  possible  showing  is 
made,  hold  with  the  distinguished  men  who  have  ranked 
the  sacred  volume  above  all  others?  Remember  that  your 
mother's  love  for  the  Bible  and  your  own  early  reverence 
for  it,  have  the  indorsement  of  the  grandest  and  profound- 
est  minds  which  have  been  known  and  honored  among 
humanity." 

The  Truth  of  the  Whole  Matter. 

But  salvation  is  not  by  belief  in  a  book,  or  a  creed,  or  a 
Church,  but  by  belief  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Mr. 
Ingersoll  skips  this  hard  problem,  "  What  think  ye  of 


W.  F.  GRAFTS'  11EPLY.  41 

Christ?"  He  hardly  refers  to  this  citadel  of  Christianity 
half  a  dozen  times  in  all  his'  lectures,  making  his  attacks 
chiefly  on  human  outposts  and  then  claiming  to  have  over- 
borne the  citadel  of  Christianity.  Even  Strauss,  Kenan, 
Rousseau,  Theodore  Parker,  Napoleon,  and  Richter — none 
of  them  experimental  Christians — unite  as  a  jury  in  the 
verdict  expressed  by  Richter  in  regard  to  Christ,  "  He  is 
the  purest  among  the  mighty,  the  mightiest  among  the 
pure."  "We  have,  then,  two  facts  as  a  sure  anchora-eof  our 
Christianity  to-day.  All  scholarly  skepticism  agrees  with 
Christianity  that  the  Bible  is  the  best  of  books  and  that 
Christ  is  the  best  of  men.  Re  who  thus  accepts  the  Bible 
and  Christ  can  not  logically  or  consistently  stop  short  of  a 
Christian  life,  following  Christ  as  his  pattern,  and  walking 
by  the  Bible  as  his  rule. 

We  may  differ  about  creeds,  and  Church  forms,  and  Bible 
interpretation,  but  he  who  has  faith  and  faithfulness  toward 
the  person,  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved.  Let  us  then 
devoutly  utter  the  creed  of  Daniel  Webster,  as  inscribed 
ky  his  own  request  on  his  tombstone  at  Marshfield : 

"  LORD,  i 

BELIEVE,  HELP 
THOTI  MINE  UNBELIEF. 
PHILOSOPHICAL  ARGUMENT 
ESPECIALLY  THAT   DRAWN  FROM 
THE  VASTNE8S  OF  THE    UNIVERSE  IN  COM- 
PARISON WITH  THE  APPARENT  INSIGNIFICANCE 
OF  THIS  GLOBE,  HAS  SOMETIMES  SHAKEN  MY  REASON 
TOR    THE    FAITH    THAT   IS   IN    ME;     BUT   MY    HEART    HAS 
ASSURED  ME  THAT  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  MUST 
BE  A  DIVINE  REALITY.      THE   SERMON  ON  THE 
MOUNT   CAN  NOT    BE   A   MERELY   HUMAN 
PRODUCTION.     THIS  BELIEF  ENTERS 
INTO  THE  VERY  DEPTH  OF  MY 
CONSCIENCE.    THE  WHOLE 
HISTORY  OF  MAN 
PROVES  IT." 


• 


CHAPLAIN  McC ABE'S  REPLY.  43 


CHAPLAIN  M'CABE'S  REPLY. 


The  Famous  Chaplain  has  a  Remarkable  Dream— He  Sees  the 
Great  City  of  Infc  ^rsollville — Which  Ingersoll  and  the  Infidel 
Host  Enter — And  are  Shut  in  for  Six  Months — Remarkable 
Condition  of  Things  Outside  and  Inside— Happiness  and  Mis- 
ery— Ingersoll  Finally  Petitions  for  a  Church  and  sends  for 
a  Lot  of  Preachers. 

I  had  a  dream  which  was  not  all  a  dream.  I  thought  I 
was  on  a  long  journey  through  a  beautiful  country,  when 
suddenly  I  came  to  a  great  city  with  walls  fifteen  feet  high. 
At  the  gate  stood  a  sentinel,  whose  shining  armor  reflected 
back  the  rays  of  the  morning  sun.  As  I  was  about  to 
salute  him  and  pass  into  the  city,  he  stopped  me  and  said: 

"Do  you  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ?" 

I  answered:     "  Yes,  with  all  my  heart." 

"  Then,"  said  he,  "  you  can  not  enter  here.  No  man  or 
woman  who  acknowledges  that  name  can  pass  in  here 
Stand  aside!"  said  he,  "  they,are  coming." 

I  looked  down  the  road,  and  saw  a  vast  multitude 
approaching.  It  was  led  by  a  military  officer. 

"  Who  is  that?"  I  asked  of  the  sentinel. 

"  That,"  he  replied,  "  is  the  great  Colonel  Robert  I , 

the  founder  of  the  City  of  Ingersoll ville." 

"  "Who  is  he?"  I  ventured  to  inquire. 

"  He  is  a  great  and  mighty  warrior,  who  fought  in  many 
bloody  battles  for  the  Union  during  the  great  war." 

I  felt  ashamed  of  my  ignorance  of  history,  and  stood 
silently  watching  the  procession.  I  had  heard  of  a  Colonel 


44  .;/  /.<  T.  I  A"  KS  OF  INGER8OLL. 

I ,  ******  bllt,  of 

conree,  this  could  not  be  the  man. 

The  procession  came  near  enough  for  me  to  recognize 
some  of  the  faces.  I  noted  two  infidel  editors  of  national 
celebrity,  followed  by  great  wagons  containing  steam  presses. 
There  were  also  five  members  of  Congress. 

All  the  noted  infidels  and  scoffers  of  the  country  seemed 
to  be  there.  Most  of  them  passed  in  unchallenged  by  the 
sentinel,  but  at  last  a  meek-looking  individual  with  a  white 
necktie  approached,  and  he  was  stopped.  I  saw  at  a  glance 
it  was  a  well-known  "  liberal "  preacher  of  New  York. 

"  Do  you  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus?"  said  the  sentineL 

"  Not  much !"  said  the  doctor. 

Everybody  laughed,  and  he  was  allowed  to  pass  in. 

There  were  artists  there,  with  glorious  pictures;  singers, 
with  ravishing  voices;  tragedians  and  comedians,  whose 
names  have  a  world- wide  fame. 

Then  came  another  division  of  the  infidel  host — saloon- 
keepers by  thousands,  proprietors  of  gambling  hells,  brothels, 
and  theatres. 

Still  another  division  swept  by:  burglars,  thieves,  thugs, 
incendiaries,  highwaymen,  murderers  —  all — all  marching 
in.  My  vision  grew  keener.  I  beheld,  and  lo!  Satan  him- 
aelf  brought  up  the  rear. 

High  afloat  above  the  mass  was  a  banner  on  which  was 
inscribed:  "  What  has  Christianity  done  for  the  country?'* 
and  another  on  which  was  inscribed:  "Down  with  the 
churches!  Away  with  Christianity — it  interferes  with  our 
happiness!"  And  then  came  a  murmur  of  voices,  that 
grew  louder  and  louder  until  a  shout  went  np  like  the  roar 
of  Niagara:  "Away  with  Him!  Crucify  Him,  crucify 
Him!"  I  felt  no  desire  now  to  enter  Ingersollville. 

As  the  last  of  the  procession  entered,  a  few  men  and 
women,  with  broad-brimmed  hats  and  plain  bonnets,  made 


CHAPLAIN  McGABE'3  HE  PLY.  45 

their  appearance,  and  wanted  to  go  in  as  missionaries,  but 
they  were  turned  rudely  away.  A  zealous  young  Metho- 
dist exhorter,  with  a  Bible  under  his  arm,  asked  permission 
to  enter,  but  the  sentinel  swore  at  him  awfully.  Then  I 
thought  I  saw  Brother  Moody  applying  for  admission,  but 
he  was  refused.  I  could  not  help  smiling  to  hear  Moody 
say,  as  he  turned  sadly  away: 

"  Well !  they  let  me  live  and  work  in  Chicago ;  it  is  very 
strange  they  won't  let  me  into  Ingersollville." 

The  sentinel  went  inside  the  gate  and  shut  it  with  a 
bang;  and  I  thought,  as  soon  as  it  was  closed,  a  mighty 
angel  came  down  with  a  great  iron  bar,  and  barred  the  gate 
on  the  outside,  and  wrote  upon  it  in  letters  of  fire,  "  Doomed 
to  live  together  six  months."  Then  he  went  away,  and  all 
was  silent,  except  the  noise  of  the  revelry  and  shouting  that 
came  from  within  the  city  walls. 

I  went  away,  and  as  I  journeyed  through  the  land  I  could 
not  believe  my  eyes.  Peace  and  plenty  smiled  everywhere. 
The  jails  were  all  empty,  the  penitentiaries  were  without 
occupants.  The  police  of  great  cities  were  idle.  Judges 
sat  in  court-rooms  with  nothing  to  do.  Business  was  brisk. 
Many  great  buildings,  formerly  crowded  with  criminals, 
were  turned  into  manufacturing  establishments.  Just  about 
this  time  the  President  of  the  United  States  called  for  a 
Day  of  Thanksgiving.  I  attended  services  in  a  Presby- 
terian Church.  The  preacher  dwelt  upon  the  changed  con- 
dition of  affairs.  As  he  went  on,  and  depicted  the  great 
prosperity  that  had  come  to  the  country,  and  gave  reasons 
for  devout  thanksgiving,  I  saw  one  old  deacon  clap  his 
handkerchief  over  his  mouth  to  keep  from  shouting  right 
out.  An  ancient  spinster,  who  never  did  like  the  "  noisy  " 
Methodists — a  regular  old  blue-stocking  Presbyterian — 
couldn't  hold  in.  She  expressed  the  thought  of  every  heart 
by  shouting  with  all  her  might,  "  Glory  to  God  for  Inger- 


4«  MISTAKES  OF  INQEBSOLL. 

eollville!"  A  young  theological  student  lifted  up  his  hand 
and  devoutly  added,  "  Esto  perpetua."  Everybody  smiled. 
The  country  was  almost  delirious  with  joy.  Great  pro- 
eesaions  of  children  swept  along  the  highways,  singing, 

"  We'll  not  give  up  the  Bible, 
God's  blessed  Word  of  Truth." 

Vast  assemblies  of  reformed  inebriates,  with  their  wives 
and  children,  gathered  in  the  open  air.  No  building  would 
hold  them.  I  thought  I 'was  in  one  meeting  where  Bishop 
Simpson  made  an  address,  and  as  he  closed  it  a  mighty 
shout  went  up  till  the  earth  rang  again.  O,  it  was  won- 
derful !  and  then  we  all  stood  up  and  sang  with  tears  of  joy, 

"  All  hail  the  power  of  Jesus'  name ! 

Let  angels  prostrate  fall ; 
Bring  forth  the  royal  diadem, 

And  crown  him  Lord  of  all." 

The  six  months  had  well-nigh  gone.  I  made  my  way 
back  again  to  the  gate  of  Ingersollville.  A  dreadful  silence 
reigned  over  the  city,  broken  only  by  the  sharp  crack  of  a 
revolver  now  and  then.  I  saw  a  man  trying  to  get  in  at  the 
gate,  and  I  said  to  him,  "  My  friend,  where  are  you  from?" 

"  I  live  in  Chicago,"  said  he,  "  and  they've  taxed  us  to 
death  there;  and  I've  heard  of  this  city,  and  I  want  to  go 
in  to  buy  some  real  estate  in  this  new  and  growing  place." 

He  failed  utterly  to  remove  the  bar,  but  by  some  means 
he  got  a  ladder  about  twelve  feet  long,  and  with  its  aid,  he 
climbed  up  upon  the  wall.  With  an  eye  to  business,  he 
shouted  to  the  first  person  he  saw: 

"  Hallo,  there  ! — what'e  the  price  of  real  estate  in  Inger- 
sollville ?" 

"  Nothing  !"  shouted  a  voice ;  "  you  can  have  all  you 
want  if  you'll  just  take  it  and  pay  the  taxes." 

"•What  made  your  taxes  so  high?"  said  the  Chicago  man. 
I  noted  the  answer  carefully ;  I  shall  never  forget  it. 


CHAPLAIN  McC ABE'S  REPLY.  47 

"  We've  had  to  build  forty  new  jails  and  fourteen  peni- 
tentiaries— a  lunatic  asylum  and  an  orphan  asylum  in 
every  ward;  we've  had  to  disband  the  public  schools,  and 
it  takes  all  the  city  revenue  to  keep  up  the  police  force." 

"Where's  my  old  friend,  I ?"  said  the  Chicago  man. 

"  O,  he  is  going  about  to-day  with  a  subscription  paper 
to  build  a  church.  They  have  gotten  up  a  petition  to  send 
out  for  a  lot  of  preachers  to  come  and  hold  revival  services. 
If  we  can  only  get  them  over  the  wall,  we  hope  there's  a 
future  for  Ingersollville  yet." 

The  six  months  ended.  Instead  of  opening  the  door, 
however,  a  tunnel  was  dug  under  the  wall  big  enough  for 
one  person  to  crawl  through  at  a  time.  First  came  two 

bankrupt  editors,  followed  by  Colonel  I himself;  and 

then  the  whole  population  crawled  through.  Then  I 
thought,  somehow,  great  crowds  of  Christians  surrounded 
the  city.  There  was  Moody,  and  Hammond,  and  Earle, 
and  hundreds  of  Methodist  preachers  and  exhorters,  and 
they  struck  up,  singing  together, 

"  Come,  ye  sinners,  poor  and  needy." 
A  needier  crowd  never  was  seen  on  earth  before. 

I  conversed  with  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  aban- 
doned city,  and  asked  a  few  of  them  this  question: 

"  Do  you  believe  in  Hell?" 

I  can  not  record  the  answers;  they  were  terribly  orthodox. 

One  old  man  said,  "  I've  been  there  on  probation  for  six 
months,  and  I  don't  want  to  join." 

I  knew  by  that  he  was  an  old  Methodist  backslider.  The 
sequel  of  it  all  was  a  great  revival,  that  gathered  in  a 
mighty  harvest  from  the  ruined  City  of  Ingersollville. 


0    V 

[Photographed  by  Moshe*.] 


.  BWAZEY'8  REPLY.  40 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  REPLY. 


Momentary  View  of  Col.  Ingersoll  Through  the  Doctor's  Glass — 

The  Bible  on  the   Meridian — What   the  Doctor  Sees  in 

the  Great  Book. 

THE  genial,  eloquent,  sensational,  unfair,  evasive  Colonel 
Ingersoll  has  come  and  gone.  Xobody  has  been  alarmed. 
But  out  of  400,000  people  a  large  audience  was  found  to 
laugh  with  him  at  Moses  and  the  Bible.  He  eschewed 
argument  altogether.  He  did  not  attempt  to  instruct  any- 
body. He  had  only  a  campaign  speech  to  make  against — 
God.  This  article  is  simply  an  invitation  to  any  fair- 
minded  doubter  to  consider  the*  reasonableness  of  a  laugh 
at  the  Christian's  Bible.  Is  this  book  a  bad  book,  or  a 
silly  book,  just  fit  for  jeer  and  sarcasm  ?  Take  a  common- 
sense  view.  In  order  to  do  so,  it  is  necessary  to  take  a 
common-place  view,  to  bring  to  the  foreground  that  which 
all  assailants  like  to  leave  in  the  background,  namely,  that 
the  Bible  teaches  by  commandment  and  urecept  only  that 
which  is  pure  and  good. 

Relating  to  man's  duty  to  himself,  it  teaches  personal 
purity,  sexual  and  otherwise;  temperance  in  meats,  drinks, 
opinions  and  ambition,  responsibleness  for  inclinations, 
thoughts  and  actions;  a  paramount  love  for  the  truth; 
courage  and  hopefulness  in  all  lawful  purposes;  self-im- 
provement, and  a  cheerful  enjoyment  of  the  good  things  of 
life.  Relating  to  man's  duty  to  others,  the  Bible  teaches 
honesty  between  man  and  man;  restitution  when  wrong 
has  been  done,  wittingly  or  unwittingly;  the  clamnableness 
4 


CO  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

of  adultery,  seduction,  and  everything  that  violates  the 
purity  of  a  family  or  a  person;  the  forgiveness  of  injuries; 
a  charitable  view  of  human  actions,  including  patience  and 
forbearance,  mercy;  the  duty  of  life-long  usefulness,  kind- 
ness and  helpfulness;  a  genial  temper  in  social  and  business 
life;  obedience  to  magistrates;  and  a  multitude  of  minor 
virtues.  Relating  to  the  moral  order  of  things,  the  Bible 
teaches  that  wrong-doing  is  unavoidably  the  way  of  sorrow, 
and  right-doing  the  way  of  happiness. 

These  teachings,  given  not  in  bald  outline,  but  in  fresh 
and  animated  pictures  and  discourses,  make  up  the  ethical 
system  of  the  Bible  from  the  first  lesson  of  the  antediluvian 
age  to  the  last  words  of  the  book,  which  are  against  whore- 
mongers, and  all  makers  and  lovers  of  a  lie,  and  in  praise 
of  all  who  are  just  and  good.  And,  still  further,  in  no 
instance  is  there  left  on  record  an  immoral  precept,  or  one 
which  impurity,  or  injustice,  or  dishonesty,  or  unkindness, 
or  selfishness  in  any  form  are  proposed.  There  is  no  mis- 
take in  that  direction.  TStill  further,  we  challenge  any 
assailant  to  name  a  virtue,  acknowledged  to  be  such  by  the 
mass  of  mankind,  which  is  wanting  in  the  catalogue  of 
Bible  virtues.  The  ethical  system  is  as  complete  as  it  is 
pure,  as  comprehensive  as  it  is  sound  and  true,  absolutely 
covering  the  whole  area  of  man's  duty  to  himself  and  to 
his  fellow-man;  a  system  sounding  all  depths,  touching  the 
most  delicate  fibres  of  life,  and  without  a  flaw  or  an  omis- 
sion. Its  precepts  and  laws  come  in  their  own  order,  but 
they  all  appear  in  the  record  first  or  last.  The  Buddhistic 
"  decalogue  "  seems  to  have  been  in  advance  of  the  Mosaic 
in  this — that  it  had  two  commandments  wan  ting  in  the  lat- 
ter— ''Thou  shalt  not  lie,"  "Thoushalt  not  get  drunk." 
But  these  commandments,  although  not  in  our  own  deca- 
logue, are  written  over  and  over  again  in  the  Old  Testament 
as  well  as  the  New.  And  yet  once  more  the  moral  require- 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  REPLY.  31 

ments  of  the  Bible,  are  as  clear  of  puerilities  as  they  are  of 
impurity  or  oblique  vision.  The  Buddhistic  decalogue 
steps  right  down  to  a  moral  weakness  of  which  the  Bible  is 
never  guilty.  "  Thou  shalt  not  visit  dances  nor  theatrical 
representations."  "  Thou  shalt  not  use  ornaments  nor  per- 
fumery in  dress." 

Occultation  of  Ingersoll's  Good  Sense — General  Survey  of  Deities 
— Scope  of  Divine  Revelation. 

Now  the  common-sense  question  occurs  whetner  a  book 
containing  such  a  system,  always  teaching  men  what  is 
good  and*  pure,  always  warning  him  against  evil,  and 
encouraging  him  to  be  a  strong,  sound,  pure,  complete  man 
in  everything,  is  worthy  of  sneers,  ribaldry  and  irrever- 
ence, even  though  it  were  full  of  unbelievable  fables  and 
fantastic  ideas  of  immortality.  In  what  spirit  can  a  com- 
pany of  people  shout  their  applause  when  a  book  whose 
lines  of  thought  are  always  leading  a  man  above  himself 
is  made  the  target  of  sarcasm  and  ridicule,  and  the  cry  is 
almost  in  so  many  wdrds,  '•  Down  with  the  Bible!"  Let 
us  go  a  little  beyond  the  strictly  ethical.  The  general  ideas 
of  our  Bible  about  God  commend  themselves  to  the  best 
wisdom  of  mankind.  "We  make  no  reference  now  to  any 
sect  of  theologies,  but  to  the  theological  atmosphere  both 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  namely,  that  God  is, 
and  being  the  Creator,  the  life  and  force  of  all  things,  in 
other  words,  as  our  Bible  has  it,  the  Living  God,  superin- 
tends all  human  affairs.  As  a  Creator  He  has  not  forgotten 
His  work;  as  a  Father  He  is  always  mindful  of  His  off- 
springs; and  caring  for  man  is  leading  him  on  by  a  great 
hope  to  a  great  inheritance;  that  His  face  is  against  evil 
doing,  that  He  smiles  on  all  who  strive  to  be  just  and  good, 
and  that  in  sorrow  and  want  and  temptation  He  folds  to 
His  great  heart  a  righteous  and  even  a  repentant  man;  and 


52  MISTAKES  OF  TNGERSOLL. 

as  the  shuttle  goes  back  and  forth,  knitting  into  each  other 
the  soiled  and  blood-stained  threads,  He  is  weaving  there- 
from a  garment  of  light  for  mankind;  that  superstition, 
despotism,  slavery  and  war  are  only  other  names  for  His 
patience,  while  man  is  learning  the  great  lesson.  This  is 
the  Bible  interpretation  of  the  incomprehensible  Cause  and 
Spirit  of  the  universe,  that  He  is  alive,  and  the  Father  and 
Friend  of  man  now,  and  will  have  some  more  for  him  after 
the  years  have  rolled  by. 

Suppose,  now,  it  be  all  untrue,  is  there  not  something  in 
this  dream  or  conceit  that  should  bring  a  sigh  rather  than 
a  sneer  from  the  heart  of  the  unbeliever?  The  god  of 
Brahmanism  is  an  abstraction  without  attributes,  the  great 
nothing  of  the  universe.  Much  the  same  is  true  of  Budd- 
hism, only  in  another  way.  It  has  law  and  virtue,  but  no 
God  of  love,  and  asks  no  trust  or  faith.  The  same  is  true 
in  the  unchanging  round  which  knows  no  spirit  above  and 
no  hope  below,  taught  by  Confucius  to  his  disciples.  The 
religion  of  the  Persians  presented  a  god  who  had  a  devil- 
god  for  a  yokefellow,  keeping  up  the  eternal  and  never-to- 
be-ended  quarrel  of  good  and  evil.  Our  Bible  begins  with 
the  idea  that  God  is  one  God,  the  only  and  the  Supreme, 
and  ends  with  this  one  God  sending  angels  down  to  say  to 
the  weary  world,  "  Peace  on  earth  good  will  to  men." 
Away  beyond  all  the  faiths  and  all  the  Bibles  held  sacred 
by  mankind,  ours  alone  declares  that  man  is  not  an  orphan, 
that  good  and  evil  are  not  eternal  antagonisms,  in  other 
words,  that  the  Great  Supreme  is  our  Father  in  Heaven. 
Trueor  false,  wisdom  has  taught  nothing  more  inspiriting  or 
helpful  to  man.  Neither  imagination  nor  credulity  has  else- 
where painted  a  vision  so  attractive,  or  out  of  the  "  silences  " 
and  "  eternities,"  and  mysteries,  whispered  so  good  a  word 
in  the  ears  of  mortals.  This  idea  of  lordship  and  father- 
hood is  not  incidental.  It  runs  through  every  narration, 


&R.  SWAZEY'S   REPLY.  53 

is  implied  in  every  precept,  and  re-affirmed  in  every  prom- 
ise. And  even  if  it  be  beyond  proof  it  makes  the  whole 
Bible  at  least  a  golden  dream. 

Suppose  now  one  does  not  take  as  absolutely  and  histor- 
ically true  the  story  of  Adam's  rib  and  the  woman,  or  of 
the  fish  swallowing  a  man  and  throwing  him  unhurt  on  the 
shore,  does  not  the  high  moral  tone  of  every  command 
and  every  precept  everywhere  illumined  by  [this  pure  and 
golden  dream,  entitle  this  book  to  the  reverence  of  man- 
kind? And  especially  since  by  the  common  consent  the  idea 
of  virtue  in  our  Bible  goes  beyond  the  many  excellent 
things  of  Confucius,  Zoroaster  and  the  other  sacred  writers 
of  other  religions,  and  its  idea  of  the  "  living  God  "  sur- 
passes in  purity  and  attractiveness,  and  in  consolation  and 
hope,  all  other  religions,  is  not  this  purest  blossom  of  the 
instinct,  if  you  please  to  call  it  so,  of  duty  and  faith,  of 
inestimable  value  as  the  guide  and  hope  of  man,  even 
though  it  were  overlaid  with  ten-fold  more  difficulties  than 
the  most  ingenious  scoffer  can  present?  Or,  if  it  is  not 
reliable  as  a  guide,  is  it  not  worthy  of  reverence  as  the 
proudest  achievement  of  the  hungry  mind  of  man? 

The  Great  Central  Figure — Absolute  Unity  of  the  Bible  System. 

Still  further,  this  Bible  has  for  its  central,  or  rather  ter- 
minal, figure  a  name  so  remarkable  that  none  but  the 
obscene  and  j/rofane  use  it  lightly,  a  man  so  remarkable 
that  whatever  the  skeptic  may  say  of  Moses  or  Paul,  his 
tongue  would  refuse  its  office  should  he  attempt  to  catalogue 
the  mistakes  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Yoltaire,  Diderot, 
Bolingbroke,  Strauss,  Eenan,  all  speak  reverently  of  this 
One  Man  of  history.  And  yet  the  whole  New  Testament 
is  built  up  on  the  sayings  and  doings  01  was  Man.  And 
not  the  New  Testament  only.  The  Jewish  scriptures,  full 
of  errors  or  not,  were  full  of  the  ideas  of  a  Messiah,  from 


54  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Moses  to  Malachi.  And  this  marvelous  man  claimed  that 
He  was  that  Messiah.  So  that  the  Old  Testament,  as  well, 
is  a  record  of  various  forms  pointing  to  this  3Ian.  I  raise 
here  no  question  of  the  truth  of  prophecy;  I  simply  affirm 
that  this  Man,  whose  purity  and  wisdom  are  so  singularly 
impressive,  claimed  to  fee  the  fulfillment  of  those  old 
writings,  identified  Himself  with  Moses  and  David  and 
Isaiah,  and  sanctified  the  great  current  of  thought  which 
from  the  mouths  of  these  men  flowed  along  the  shores  of 
that  elder  world.  So  that  to  revile  the  old  Bible  of  the 
Jews  is  to  revile  Him.  There  is  no  scholar,  orthodox -or 
liberal,  believing  or  skeptical,  who  does  not  identify  the 
phenomenon  of  Christianity  with  the  phenomenon  of 
Judaism.  Out  of  the  soil  of  Judaic  history  sprung  this 
purer  growth — Jesus  and  the  things  He  taught. 

I  suggest,  therefore,  that  before  one  joins  in  the  laugh 
against  a  religion  which  was  founded  long  anterior  to  any 
other  historical  records  than  its  own,  he  pause  a  little, 
remembering  that  this  remarkable  Man,  who  has  not  yet 
become  antiquated,  quoted  those  old  books  as  His  Bible, 
and  doubtless  had  a  tolerable  understanding  of  their  mean- 
ing and  worth.  And,  perhaps,  if  He  whose  sermon  on  the 
mount  is  yet  as  fresh  in  tho  nineteenth  century  as  though 
it  were  uttered  to-day,  found  a  vein  of  precious  ore  in 
those  books,  those  same  veins  may  be  yet  visible  in  our 
time. 

The  Bible  Law  of  Development  vs.  Infidel  Philosophy. 

I  have  given,  you  will  perceive,  room  for  a  large  amount 
of  the  unaccountable  and  incredible  in  a  Bible  worthy  of 
reverence.  In  fact,  there  is  no  occasion,  except  in  the 
peculiarity  of  some  men's  minds,  to  allow  so  much.  There 
is  a  passage  in  the  Bible  that  is  descriptive  of  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven,  and  reads  thus:  "  First  the  blade  and  then  the 


DR.  SWAZEF'S  REPLY.  55 

ear,  and  after  that  the  full  corn  in  the  ear."  The  Bible 
here  gives  the  key  to  itself.  It  is  a  statement  of  the  law  of 
development,  intellectual  and  moral.  An  observation  of 
the  Bible  from  the  standpoint  of  this  law  discovers  an 
answer  to  the  objections  that  are  just  now  brought  against 
our  sacred  Book.  Col.  Ingersoll  and  men  of  his  style  of 
criticism  (and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  some  preachers,  also,) 
quote  a  verse  from  Genesis  precisely  as  though  the  same 
words,  or  the  same  event,  were  found  in  the  Gospels. 
They  judge  an  act  or  a  usage  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch 
precisely  as  though  it  were  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles. They  make  no  allowance  for  the  stage  of  human 
progress.  They  would  teach  a  child  surveying  before  he 
had  learned  the  multiplication  table.  They  talk  about 
"  skulls  "  as  indicating  progress,  but  God  must  needs  put 
the  same  ideas  into  a  skull  of  the  Lauren tian  period  that 
He  does  into  a  skull  of  to-day.  Otherwise,  God  is  worthy 
of  hate.  They  would  preach  the  doctrine  of  equality  on 
the  deck  of  a  man-of-war.  They  utterly  ignore  the  drill 
that  men  and  nations  need  in  coming  up  to  their  majority. 
They  would  suffer  the  rabble  in  a  court- room  to  vote  down 
the  decision  of  a  judge  on  the  bench.  The  men  who  are 
historically  connected  with  God's  order  of  things  must  dis- 
pense with  the  great  schoolmaster — experience.  Ideas 
must  spring  forth  complete,  like  Minerva.  Hafters  and 
dome  must  touch  the  skies  the  same  day  the  foundation 
stones  were  laid.  Those  are  the  ideas  with  which  a  certain 
class  of  critics  approach  the  Old  Testament.  If  a  people 
are  not  ripe  for  a  commonwealth,  and  God  gives  them  a 
king,  God  is  all  wrong.  If  a  people  are  become  a  great 
military  camp  and  Moses  proclaims  martial  law,  Moses  and 
his  God  are  monsters  of  cruelty.  If  there  are  no  jails,  r.o 
way  of  disposing  of  prisoners  of  war,  and  a  gentle  servi- 
tude is  the  substitute,  God  is  a  great  slave-driver.  If  men's 


56  MISTAKES  OF  INOER80LL. 

lusts  are  so  greedy  that  even  the  best  of  them  want  more 
wives  than  one,  the  patience  of  God  with  the  slow  growth 
of  moral  ideas  is  translated  as  the  establishment  of  polyg- 
amy. If  a  people  are  so  vile  and  filthy  that  the  beasts  are 
clean  and  modest  in  comparison,  and  God  sends  an  army 
to  wipe  them  out  of  being,  we  are  pointed  to  the  white 
faces  of  women  and  children  lifted  on  the  crests  of  the 
divine  wrath! 

Common    Sense   View  of  the    Subject — How   it  Eliminates  Poly- 
gamy, Slavery,  etc. 

Common  sense,  in  asking  whether  the  Bible  is  worthy  of 
confidence  would  ask  whether,  as  matter  of  fact,  the  moral 
instruction  of  any  period  of  Bible  record  was  not  fully  up 
to  the  capacity  of  that  period  to  receive  it?  It  would  ask 
another  question — namely,  whether  a  divine  tuition  is  dif- 
ferent from  any  other,  except  that  it  is  more  skillful? — • 
whether,  in  fact,  the  critics  who  compare  an  old  order  of 
things  with  the  highest  state  of  moral  development  are  not 
demanding  that  the  people  under  God's  training  shall  be  a 
miraculous  people,  throwing  off  prejudices  as  they  do  a 
Winter  garment,  bearing  fruit  without  any  intermediate 
period  of  growth  and  blossom,  and,  in  general  terms,  upset- 
ting the  every -day  laws  of  progress.  It  is  this  idealism — 
than  which  nothing  is  more  irrational — which  creates  a 
large  share  of  the  moral  difficulties  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  is  the  insane  or  reckless,  the  idiotic  or  perverse 
tenacity  with  which  men  demand  that  the  divine  teaching 
must  not  suit  itself  to  the  time  in  which  it  was  given,  but 
must  always  be  up  to  the  ripest  periods  of  progress,  that 
gives  any  opportunity  for  the  objugations  of  men  who 
"  can  write  a  better  Bible  "  themselves  than  ours. 

The  two  great  charges  brought  against  the  Bible  are 
polygamy  and  slavery.  Now,  admit  that  in  all  stages, 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  ME  PLY.  Sfl 

from  the  chimpanzee  up  to  Darwin,  they  are  wrong  (which 
is  by  no  means  clear),  are  these  charges  true?  The  fact 
that  polygamy  and  slavery  existed  among  the  people  v/lio 
were  under  drill  does  not  prove  it.  The  fact  that  there 
were  laws  regulating  either  of  these  practices  does  not 
prove  it.  A  law  regulating  the  social  evil  does  not  prove 
that  the  sovereign  people  who  make  the  laws  approve  the 
social  evil,  but  only  that,  if  men  and  women  will  go  wrong, 
society  must  put  up  some  defenses  against  corruption. 
Common  sense  inquires  whether  statutory  allowance  is  an 
indorsement.  And  if  that  Remarkable  Man,  commenting 
on  the  divorce  laws  of  Moses,  said  that  Moses  gave  those 
laws  because  the  people  could  not  bear  any  better  laws, 
common  sense  inquires  if  the  same  may  not  be  true  of 
other  recognized  usages  which  are  below  the  ideal  of  an 
advanced  age. 

And  when  one  rails  at  the  Bible  for  its  ill-treatment  of 
women,  the  railing  is  simply  gratuitous.  I  have  read  the 
Old  Testament  more  or  less  carefully  for  many  years,  but  I 
do  not,  at  this  writing,  remember  a  single  word  that  dis- 
honors woman  as  woman.  I  have  read  only  a  little  of 
Brahminical  writings,  but  I  remember  a  sentence  or  two 
about  women.  "A  woman  is  never  lit  for  independence;" 
"  Women  have  no  business  with  the  text  of  the  Yeda. 
*  *  *  Sinful  women  must  be  as  foul  as  falsehood  itself. 
This  is  fixed  law."  Whether  in  the  last  quotation  it  ia 
meant  that  there  is  no  purification  for  a  bad  woman,  or 
what  else,  I  do  not  know;  but  I  do  not  recall  anything  like 
it  in  the  Old  Testament.  Educated  common  sense  knows 
that  women  among  the  Hebrews  occupied  a  vastly  higher 
level  than  the  women  of  all  other  nations.  It  is  simply 
notorious,  that  with  all  the  lapses  from  virtue,  the  Hebrew 
women  were  as  white  as  snow  compared  with  the  women 
of  the  Gentile  world,  and  honor  goes  always  hand  in  hand 
with  virtue. 


58  MISTAKES  OF  INOKRSOLL. 


More    Common    Sense  —  The    Great    Ingersoll    Orb    Approaching 
the  Nihilistic  Belt  — Nebulae. 

Common  sense  demands  that  in  judgment  of  the  moral 
worth  of  the  Bible,  it  be  taken  as  a  whole.  The  theory  of 
all  who  receive  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  that  they 
belong  together,  are  so  to  be  interpreted;  that  one  is  the 
beginning,  and  the  other  the  conclusion,  of  the  one  Bible. 
The  one  begins  in  the  "  Laurentian  period,"  so  to  speak,  and 
follows  man  up  from  a  wild  nomad  to  wealth  and  empire, 
and  the  decay  of  empire;  the  moral  and  the  civil  law  blend- 
ing and  running  along  together  for  hundreds  of  years,  then 
separating  by  the  simple  explosion  of  the  civil  powers. 
The  other  takes  him  after  the  wounds  caused  by  the  explo- 
sion have  partly  healed,  and  puts  forth  moral  ideas  unen- 
cumbered by  any  considerations  of  the  state.  The  former 
gave  moral  laws  to  the  Jew;  the  latter  moral  laws  to 
the  man;  everything  from  first  to  last  going  on  as  nat- 
urally as  the  building  of  a  city,  or  the  growth  of  a  tree. 
And  common  sense  should  inquire  how  it  happens,  that, 
while  the  great  army  of  scholars  who  have  studied  these 
systems,  believers  and  skeptics  alike,  have  been  filled  with 
admiration,  a  man  rises  up  now  and  then  to  vituperate  the 
logic  of  events  and  malign  the  great  God  because  He  has 
not  chosen  to  plant  a  tree  with  the  branches  in  the  ground 
and  the  roots  in  the  air. 

Common  sense  naturally  asks  what  the  meaning  of  this 
bitter  outbreak  may  be.  We  have  no  right  to  men's 
motives.  But  this  is  a  phenomenon,  the  cause  of  which 
we  have  a  right  to  ask,  as  we  would  ask  the  cause  of  a  fall- 
ing meteor.  The  Bible  is  a  law  and  order  book.  It  teaches 
that  one  must  look  out  how  he  pulls  up  even  the  tares. 
Are  we  in  our  historic  orbit  passing  a  belt  of  niliilism,  a 
time  when  assassination  is  reform,  arid  a  bad  shot  at  a  poor 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  11EPL  Y.  59 

czar,  inheriting  semi-barbarism  and  striving  with  all  his 
might  to  get  rid  of  the  inheritance,  is  to  be  lamented? 

You  may  be  told  that  it  is  the  horrid  theology  of  the 
Bible  which  provokes  assault.  Common  sense  remarks 
that,  horrid  as  its  theology  may  be,  its  sterner  features  are 
just  like  the  theology  of  nature,  namely,  a  demand  for 
obedience  to  law  and  "  the  survival  of  the  fittest."  It  is 
nature  put  into  language,  the  operation  of  moral  causes 
foretold — that  is  all.  If  you  want  a  government  more  just 
than  one  which  judges  a  man  according  to  his  deeds,  good 
or  bad,  and  takes  into  account  his  knowledge  and  oppor- 
tunities, why,  the  thing  to  do  is  to  rail  at  nature,  at  cause 
and  effect,  at  seed-time  and  harvest.  For  while  on  the 
better  side  the  Bible  theology  is  more  beneficent  than 
nature,  on  the  hard  side  it  is  simply  unmitigated  natural 
law.  Do  the  theologians  preach  that  good  men  will  be 
damned  ?  Then  rail  at  the  theologians,  and  not  at  the 
Bible. 

In  closing  this  short  article,  as  an  addendum,  let  me  ask 
a  question  or  two  for  the  benefit  of  all  who  have  a  bad 
opinion  of  the  Bible,  as  a  woman's  book  or  a  slave's  book. 

1.  Forget  the  harem  of  Solomon,  and  say  why  Judaism 
was  a  house  of  refuge  for  thousands  of  Koman  and  Greek 
iromen,  many  of  them  of  noble  birth,  for  a  century  pre- 
ceding the  Christian  era  ? 

2.  In  the  same  line,  squarely,  has,  or  has  not,  the  mod- 
ern estate  of  woman  been  the  fruit  of  Christian  (including 
Judaic)  teaching? 

3.  Did  not  the  Bible  first  mitigate  and  finally  destroy 
slavery  in  the  Roman  empire  \ 

4.  Did  not  the  Bible  destroy  slavery  in  England  and 
America?     Charge  all  the  slave-driving  you  will  to  Chris- 
tian men,  and  give  any  unbeliever  aU   he  claims,  and  then 
go  down  to  a  last  analysis. 


60  tTlBTAKES  OF  INGER80LL. 

5.  Are  not  republican  institutions,  including  (as  the  old 
republics  did  not)  democratic  ideas,  directly  and  palpably 
the  fruit  of  the  teachings  of  that  remarkable  Man  (whom 
the  French  infidels  called  the  Great  Democrat);  whose 
Bible  was  the  Old  Testament,  and  who  told  His  followers 
how  to  amend  and  finish  it  by  a  book  called  the  New  Test- 
ament ? 

In  whatever  way  these  questions  may  be  answered,  the 
man  who  essays  to  answer  them  will  find  that  it  is  not  so 
easy  to  eliminate  the  genius  of  Moses  and  Jesus  from  the 
genius  of  the  world's  movement  toward  virtue,  equality  and 
liberty. 

TELL  the  Prince  that  this  (  a  costly  copy  of  the  Bible )  ifl 
the  secret  of  England's  greatness. — Queen  Victoria. 

I  HAVE  always  said  and  always- will  say,  that  the  studious 
perusal  of  the  Sacred  Yolume  will  make  better  citizens, 
better  fathers  and  better  husbands. — ^Thomas  Jefferson. 

THE  Bible  is  equally  adapted  to  the  wants  and  infirmi- 
ties of  every  human  being.  No  other  book  ever  addressed 
itself  so  authoritatively  and  so  pathetically  to  the  judgment 
and  moral  sense  of  mankind. — Chancellor  James  Kent. 

CHRIST  proved  that  He  was  the  Son  of  the  Eternal  by 
His  disregard  of  time.  All  His  doctrines  signify  only, 
and  the  same  thing,  eternity. — Napoleon  Bonaparte. 

I  HAVE  read  the  Bible  morning,  noon  and  night,  and 
have  ever  since  been  the  happier  and  better  man  for  such 
reading. — Edward  Burke. 

I  DO  not  believe  human  society,  including  not  merely  a 
few  persons  in  any  state,  but  whole  masses  of  men,  ever 
has  attained,  or  ever  can  attain,  a  high  state  of  intelli- 
gence, virtue,  security,  liberty,  or  happiness  without  the 
Holy  Scriptures. —  "William  H.  Seward. 


r  Photographed  by  Melander.] 


DR.  VOLLYE&8  MJifLT. 


DB.  COLLYER'S  REPLY. 


Dr.  Collyer  Relates  a  Little  Story — A  Book  that  cost  Mr.  Ingersofl 

the  Governorship  of  Illinois — The  Volume  Philosophically 

Considered — Heavy  Blows. 

I  HAVE  been  told  a  gentleman  went  to  see  Mr.  Ingersofl 
once,  when  he  lived  in  Peoria,  and  finding  a  fine  copy  of 
Yoltaire  in  his  library,  said,  "  Pray,  Sir,  what  did  this  cost 
you?"  "  I  believe  it  cost  me  the  governorship  of  the  State 
of  Illinois,"  was  the  swift  and  pregnant  answer.  1  can  not 
but  recall  the  incident  as  he  stands  in  the  light  of  his  lec- 
ture. He  seems  to  be  saying,  "it  is  my  turn  now,  and  I 
will  do  what  I  can  to  square  the  account.  I  will  dethrone 
your  God  to-day  amid  peals  of  laughter;  blow  His  being 
down  the  wind  on  the  wings  of  my  epigrams.  I  have  those, 
about  me  who  will  send  my  words  flying  all  over  the  state. 
I  will  start  a  crusade  which  will  shut  up  your  churches 
some  day,  silence  your  immemorial  prayers,  slay  all  the 
hopes  that  would  strive  after  something  more  than  this 
mpmentary  gleam  between  the  eternities,  make  of  no 
account  the  grand  deep  truth  that  '  life  struck  sharp  on 
death  makes  awful  lightning,'  and  so  dwarf  our  human 
kind  that  when  we  get  man  where  we  want  him  he  shall 
aever  again  be  able,  to  look  over  the  low  billows  of  his  green 
graves,  and  end  the  fight  by  making  my  own  creed  good 
once,  for  all  that 

Man,  God'3  last  work,  who  seemed  so  fair,       •    ' 
Such  splendid  purpose  in  his  eyes, 
Who  rolled  the  psalms  in  wintry  skies, 

Who  built  him  fanes  for  fruitless  prayer, 


64  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Who  trusted  God  was  love  indeed, 

And  love,  creation's  final  law ; 

Though  nature  red,  in  tooth  and  claw, 
With  raven,  shrieked  against  his  creed ; 
Who  loved,  who  suffered  countless  ills, 

Who  battled  for  the  true  and  just, 

Is  blown  about  the  desert  dust, 
And  sealed  within  the  iron  hills." 

Now,  since  we  first  knew  Mr.  Ingersoll  by  report,  there 
has  been  a  time  when  those  who  can  only  believe  in  God  as 
a  rather  helpless  little  brother,  by  no  means  able  to  take 
care  of  Himself,  and  in  themselves  as  big  brothers,  who 
are  bound  to  stand  up  for  Him,  might  have  felt  there  was 
grave  danger  in  such  a  sight  as  we  have  witnessed — of  a 
vast  array  of  men  and  women,  some  of  them  it  is  fair  to 
believe  of  a  thoughtful  turn,  assembled  to  hear  the  last  and 
best  word  which  can  be  said  why  God  should  be  dethroned, 
and  His  presence  and  providence  numbered  among  the 
things  that  seemed  true  enough  once,  but  pass  away  inevit- 
ably in  the  process  through  which  we  arise  from  "  our  dead 
selves  to  higher  things." 

Sparks   Flying   in   all    Directions — Singular   Mental   Phenomenon 
Occasioned  by  $25.000  a  Year. 

He  was  clothed  once  in  a  fine  austerity;  went  on  his 
lonely  way  quite  content,  to  give  grave  and  serious  reasons 
for  rejecting  what  so  many  of  us  hold  dearer  than  our  life, 
and  was  faithful  to  his  instinct  and  insight,  though  such 
ovations  as  were  ever  given  him — as  Dr.  Dyer  used  to  say  of 
the  old  abolitionists — might  take  the  form  mainly  of  rotten 
eggs.  I  know  of  more  than  one  man,  who,  in  those  days, 
nourished  a  deep  and  most  tender  regard  for  him,  and 
found  something  noble  in  the  stand  he  made  for  the  best  a 
man  can  do  and  be,  who  has  to  abide  so  utterly  alone.  But 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  roystering  around  as  the  popular  advocate  of 


DR.  COLLY  Eft  8  REPLY.  65 

atheism,  at  $'25,000  a  year,  as  the  common  report  goea/ 
is  quite  another  sort  of  a  man.  No  doubt  the  laborer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire.  Those  who  run  the  thing  may  be 
trusted  to  see  to  that,  and  a  good  many  of  us  who  stand 
on  the  other  side  may  not  be  much  better,  according  to 
i  the  old  proverb  that  it  is  "  money  makes  the  mare  go." 
Still,  as  this  always  turns  the  fine  edge  of  our  endeavor, 
and  makes  us  weak  for  good  when  we  make  it  at  all  a 
matter  of  barter  and  sale,  so  it  must  be  with  Mr.  Inger- 
soll,  making  him  weak  for  what  I  can  not  but  believe  to 
be  evil.  He  is  no  more  in  such  a  case  than  the  second 
batch  of  reformers  in  the  old  times,  who  argued  lustily 
for  a  reformation,  while  still  they  grew  rich  on  the  Church 
lands.  No  more  than  your  Archbishop,  in  the  Church  of 
England,  arguing  on  the  godliness  of  tythes  and  priestly 
authority.  So  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  motley,  trying  to  laugh 
the  deepest  and  most  sacred  convictions  of  men  down  the 
wind  under  the  guise  of  girding  at  the  Pentateuch  (for 
we  must  thank  him,  I  say  again,  for  the  frankness  with 
which  he  tells  us  this  is  his  ultimate  aim),  is  a  very  differ- 
ent man  to  the  quiet,  manful  fellow  we  used  to  hear  of  in 
Peoria  long  ago,  who  won  such  regard  from  those  who  could 
at  all  understand  him.  The  man  in  the  ring,  whose  sole 
business  it  is  to  make  you  laugh,  makes  no  converts  even  to 
rough  riding.  And  so  there  is  ground  for  neither  hope  nor 
fear,  as  we  stand  on  that  side  or  this,  about  the  advance  of 
atheism,  so  long  as  this  remains  as  the  best  method  of  its 
choicest  champions.  It  may  make  headway  with  such  men 
as  Toltaire  had  to  handle,  and  in  such  times:  but  this 
serious  and  deep-hearted  race  of  ours  never  did  take  to  this 
kind  of  thing,  and  never  will.  It  is  only  as  the  crackling 
of  the  thorns  under  a  pot. 

Nor  can  this  bitter  and  relentless  spirit  toward  those  who 
differ  help  the  advocates  of  atheism  any  more  than  it  does 
5 


66  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  . 

the  advocates  of  the  faith.  Robert  Southey  says,  in  a  letter 
to  Sharon  Turner,  touching  the  contentions  of  his  time 
between  the  sects,  "  When  I  hear  the  dissenters  talk  about 
Churchmen,  I  feel  like  a  very  high  Churchman  myself;  but 
when  I  hear  Churchmen  talk  about  dissenters,  I  feel  that  I 
am  a  dissenter,  too."  It  was  but  the  bias  of  a  nature,  in 
which  the  balances  were  still  true,  in  favor  of  the  side  which 
was  dealt  with  most  unfairly.  The  plea  in  the  mind  of  one 
who  could  look  on  both  sides  with  a  calm  concern,  that  the 
result  of  fighting  over  the  lamp  should  not  be  to  put  out  the 
light,  or  of  contending  over  the  nature  and  properties  of  the 
spring  to  soil  the  water  so  that  no  one  could  drink  at  it,  be  he 
ever  so  athirst.  Lord  Bacon  says,  "  there  is  a  superstition 
in  avoiding  superstition,  when  those  think  they  do  best  who 
go  farthest;  but  care  should  be  taken  that  the  good  should 
not  be  purged  away  with  the  bad,  which  commonly  happens 
when  this  is  the  method.'1  So  I  think  it  must  be  with  such 
violent  and  utter  denunciation  as  this,  which  lies  within 
the  spirit  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  address.  It  has  pleased  a  very 
bright  and  able  man  in  our  ranks  to  fall  into  accord  with 
him  in  many  things  he  has  to  say,  and  to  show  how  we 
also  hold  this  ground.  I  may  be  old-fashioned,  and  unfit 
for  a  fair  judgment,  but  I  am  very  much  of  Sonthey's  mind, 
and  when  I  hear  orthodoxy  denounced  in  such  a  spirit,  I 
say  I  agree  with  Mr.  Ingersoll  nowhere.  Here  is  bigotry 
of  a  .iew  shape,  denouncing  bigots ;  and  I  sway  to  the  other 
side  for  very  charity,  and  the  desire  that  the  most  good  pos- 
sible should  be  found  in  any  evil,  and  especially  that  one 
should  think  as  well  as  possible  of  those  who  can  not  see  as 
we  do,  but  are  still  of  as  fine  and  clear  a  grain,  and  show 
as  noble  a  soul  of  self-sacrifice — that  uttermost  and  inner- 
most proof  a  man  can  give  that  he  believes  he  is  right. 


DR.  COLLY  Eft  8  REPLY.  67 

The  Clear  Ring  of  Truth  vs.  the  Dull  Thud  of  the  Baser  Metal 

— Potency  of  Simple  Statement — The  Doctor's  Objections 

to  Ingerscll's  Talk. 

Now,  a  man  who  seeks  and  loves  the  truth,  must  be 
esteemed  in  every  human  society;  but  so  far  as  my  own 
observation  goes,  the  most  of  our  fights  and  contentions 
carried  on  in  such  a  spirit  as  this  I  am  trying  to  touch, 
end  in  vast  clouds  of  dust  and  smoke,  in  which  the  clear, 
shining  sun  of  the  truth  turns  blood-red  to  our  human 
vision.  And  those  who,  even  with  the  best  intentions,  are 
forever  going  about,  as  we  say,  with  a  chip  on  their  shoul- 
der, are  likely  in  the  end  to  be  voted  a  common  nuisance. 
The  truth  must  be  told,  no  matter  who  gets  hurt;  the 
truth,  or  even  semblance  of  the  truth,  which  smites  the 
man  who  tells  it,  and  moves  his  heart  so  that  he  has  to  cry 
"  Woe  is  me  if  I  preach  not  this  Gospel  !"  But  the  truth 
still  comes  to  us  through  clear  and  simple  statements  which 
tell  their  own  story,  rather  than  through  denial,  denuncia- 
tion, satire,  slang,  and  appeals  to  the  top-gallery.  So 
Channing  thought,  and  the  result  is,  that  his  best  sermons 
are  simply  statements  of  the  truth  as  it  had  come  home  to 
his  own  heart  and  mind.  So  Parker  thought,  and  reading 
his  life  again,  just  now,  I  find  there  is  nothing  the  man 
longed  for  so  much  as  that  he  might  be  quiet,  and  just  let 
the  truth  dome  itself  in  his  great  fine  heart  and  brain,  while 
he  regrets  bitterly  the  evil  times  that  compelled  him  to 
take  to  other  methods;  and  the  best  work  he  ever  did  for 
the  deep,  still  truth,  are  statements.  So  John  Wesley 
thought,  when  once  he  struck  his  shining  path  from  earth 
to  heaven,  and  his  sermons  from  1740  to  1780,  are  simply 
statements  of  the  ever-growing  and  ever-brightening  truth 
God  is  revealing  to  man.  And  so  even  Calvin*  thought, 
and  his  earliest  and  best  utterances  are  still  statements, 
grim,  hard,  iron-clinched,  but  all  the  same  the  stern  and 


06  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

inexorable  affirmation,  made  good  for  all  time,  that  neither 
priest  nor  Pope  can  play  fast  and  loose  with  the  Most  High 
God.  Always  you  find  the  greatest  and  best  men  when 
they  themselves  are  at  their  best  making  statements,  exactly 
as  Jesus  does  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount.  Saying  what 
is  in  them  simply  and  sincerely,  feeling  sure,  as  Coleridge 
says,  that  "  no  authority  can  ever  prevail  in  opposition  to 
the  truth."  So  Columbus  holds  himself  before  the  Council 
of  Salamanca,  when  a  new  world  is  in  debate.  So  Stephen- 
son  holds  himself  before  the  House  of  Lords,  when  he  has 
to  answer  for  his  locomotive.  So  Newton  affirms  his  dis- 
covery of  the  law  of  gravitation  ;  and  Harvey,  that  of  the 
circulation  of  the  blood.  That  is  the  law  of  all  truth-tell- 
ing in  its  noblest  and  best  shape,  and  then  the  contention, 
if  there  is  one,  is  simply  the  hiss,  as  Stebbins,  of  California, 
said  once,  when  he  was  speaking  in  defence  of  the  Chinese, 
"is  simply  the  hiss  the  white-hot  truth  makes  when  it 
strikes  the  black  waters  of  hell." 

Here,  then,  is  my  radical  objection  to  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
talk,  apart  from  his  final  aim.  It  is  conceived  and  done  in 
a  narrow  and  most  bigoted  spirit,  by  one  who  claims,  above 
all  things  in  the  world,  to  be  free  from  bigotry.  The  men 
of  whom  he  speaks  so  unworthily  are,  take  them  by  and 
large,  worthy  men.  The  things  in  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
so  called,  on  which  the  fathers  based  their  creeds,  are 
rapidly  passing  into  worthier  meanings;  and  the  day  is  not 
far  distant  when  the  old  belief  will  have  rotted  down,  and 
be  as  when  an  old  tree  rots,  to  become  the  nursing  mother 
of  a  bed  of  violets.  No  man  believes  in  such  things  any 
more,  who  has  read  and  thought  to  any  purpose;  and  the 
man  who  has  not  done  this,  had  far  better  believe  in  the 
six  days'  work  and  one  day's  rest,  rib,  serpent,  fall,  flood, 
ark,  manna,  and  all  the  rest  of  those  wonders,  than  in  Mr. 
Ingereoll's  enormous  and  most  fatal  negation  of  God. 


DR.  COLLY  ERS  REPLY.  0* 

Putting    the    Pin©    Edge    on    Orthodoxy — Taking    a    Weld   with 
Prof.  Swing  and  Dr.  Thomas — Borax  and  Bigotry. 

Nor  is  that  bad  and  bitter  spirit  in  orthodoxy  now  which 
once  found  utterance  in  fire  and  the  axe,  as  it  did  in  far 
more  ruthless  ways  in  atheism  when  the  goddess  of  Rea- 
son was  the  divinity  of  France.  Orthodoxy,  in  a  free-spoken 
land  like  ours,  is  very  civil,  indeed,  and  timid,  as  I  think, 
almost  to  a  fault,  showing  just  the  spirit  which  is  nof  sure 
the  ground  may  not  slip  from  under  it  any  moment;  and 
so  far  as  its  finest  leaders  go  edging  away  from  the  rocking 
base,  as  fast  and  as  far  the  people  for  whom  those  men  have 
to  care  will  follow.  Nothing  could  be  more  gentle  than 
the  way  orthodoxy  used  Brother  Swing.  He  was  no  more 
orthodox  than  you  are.  He  might  not  think  so,  but  that's 
the  truth,  patent  to  the  whole  world.  Yet  the  church  to 
which  he  was  preaching,  and  the  old  standbys,  as  we  call 
them,  said,  "  This  is  what,  we  are  here  for,  and  have  laid 
out  our  money  and  time  for,  and,  if  you  go  back  far 
enough,  it  is  what  our  fathers  shed  their  blood  for.  Dr. 
Swing  must  be  true  to  his  ancient  vows,  or  leave."  If  Mr. 
Ingersoll  should  ever  lay  out  his  money,  and  those  of  his 
mind  put  theirs  to  it,  to  build  a  great  hall  in  Washington 
or  Chicago  for  the  propagation  of  atheism,  and  employ  a 
man  to  preach  to  them,  and  then  if  this  man  should  depart 
as  far  backward  from  their  way  of  thinking  as  Brother 
Swing  departed  forward  from  that  of  the  Presbyterians, 
they  will  be  much  more  catholic  and  inclusive  than  I  think 
they  are  if  they  use  that  man  as  gently. 

I  do  not  mention  this  for  proof  of  my  word  that  ortho- 
doxy is  getting  to  be  very  civil — indeed,  gentle,  timid,  and 
even  wanting  in  a  proper  courage  to  take  care  of  its  own 
household,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  half-and-half  meas- 
ures they  are  taking  with  Mr.  Talmadge,  in  Brooklyn,  and 
the  way  in  which  they  let  him  smite  them  on  the  mouth. 


TB  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

Orthodoxy  has  exchanged  the  old  fetters  of  iron  for  silken 
bands  with  an  elastic  base.  Brother  Thomas,  my  dear  and 
good  friend,  has  no  right  to  preach  in  a  Methodist  pulpit, 
and  in  the  days  I  remember,  would  not  have  preached  in 
one  to  this  time.  There  must  be  a  certain  concert  of  opin- 
ion, capable  of  being  brought  within  fair  lines,  or  nobody 
would  organize  or  hold  anything.  This  is  the  secret  of  our 
most  happy  relation  through  all  these  years  in  this  church. 
"We  hold  together  through  n  large,  free,  common  opinion 
about  certain  grand  verities.  I  should  injure  my  own 
nature  if  I  went  over  those  lines.  Yet  men  are  continually 
going  over  them  in  the  orthodox  churches.  But  they  bear 
and  forbear,  scold  a  little,  fret  a  good  deal,  and  trust  the 
brother  may  see  things  different  presently  or  depart  in 
peace,  and  then,  when  there  is  no  help  for  it,  they  lift  him 
very  gently  out  of  the  fold. 

Nor  is  the  scorn  Mr.  Ingersoll  pours  out  on  these  ancient 
books  befitting  any  man  who  could  feel  his  way  to  their 
heart,  apart  from  any  theory  of  inspiration  or  the  use  made 
of  them  to  hinder  human  progress.  It  is  the  spirit  of  the 
Caliph  he  shows,  who,  when  the  question  came  up  what 
should  be  done  with  a  superb  library,  said,  "Burn  it;  what- 
ever is  against  the  Koran  ought  to  be  burnt,  and  whatever 
agrees  with  the  Koran  is  not  needed."  With  some  such 
narrow  vision  he  would  judge  these  venerable  monuments 
of  the  most  ancient  time;  make  an  end  of  them  to  human 
credence;  get  them  branded  for  worthless  in  the  interests 
of  human  reason;  and  order  himself  toward  them  as  if  an 
iconoclast,  looking  over  the  treasures  of  the  Louvre,  should 
note  only  what  is  grotesque  or  painful,  while  he  missed 
what  is  most  beautiful  and  entrancing,  tumble  the  whole 
into  a  heap,  and  burn  it  into  ashes  and  lime.  Men  have 
misused  these  books,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  that,  and 
turned  some  parts  of  them  into  bane,  which,  well  used, 


DR.  COLLTERS  REPLY.  71 

might  bring  blessing.  So  they  tell  me,  there  is  no  place 
that  can  match  Peoria  in  its  power  to  turn  good  grain  into 
whisky;  therefore,  shovel  Peoria  into  the  river,  and  leave 
the  smiling  prairies  where  the  grain  grows,  a  waste. 

Nothing  in  the  world  shows  a  man  s  limitations  so  fatally 
as  the  play  of  this  power  which  can  not  or  will  not  distin- 
guish between  the  use  and  the  abuse  of  things,  or  will  over- 
look the  abiding  good  because  of  the  transient  evil.  We 
tolerate  it  easily  in  the  child  who  turns  in  wratu  on  the 
chair  against  which  he  has  bruised  himself;  we  look  twice 
at  the  man  who  does  this,  and  then  draw  our  own  conclu- 
sion. I  have  been  told,  on  good  authority,  that  Mr.  Inger- 
soll,  in  his  childhood  and  his  early  youth,  did  get  badly 
bruised  against  these  books.  Well,  the  books  have  to  take 
it  now;  but  is  this  the  sign  of  a  large  and  a  gracious  mind? 
One  would  think  he  might  have  gotten  over  it  before  this, 
and  come  to  understand  them  better  than  mere  instruments 
of  hurt.  I  can  agree  in  nothing  touching  the  Bible  and 
the  soul's  life  with  the  man  who  tells  me  his  aim  is  to 
damage  or  destroy  the  faith  of  man  in  God,  to  the  best  of 
his  ability;  but  if  this  was  out  of  the  way,  one  might  not 
object  to  his  antagonism  to  the  misuse  of  Moses  by  those 
who  think  they  do  God  service.  Still,  in  any  case,  I  find 
too  much  beauty  in  the  books  to  allow  me  to  touch  them 
with  irreverent  hands.  They  are  simply  above  all  stand- 
ards of  value,  with  which  I  measure  other  books  outside  the 
Scriptures,  in  the  revelation  they  make  to  me  of  the  way 
men  felt  their  way  toward  a  sure  faith  in  God  in  those  old 
times,  and  so  grew,  in  many  instances,  to  be  very  noble  and 
good  at  last,  and,  as  I  have  said,  of  the  way  in  which  they 
tried  to  account  for  this  wonderful  and  mysterious  universe 
in  which  they  found  themselves  when  they  had  "learned 
the  use  of  I  and  me,  and  said  '  I  am  not  what  I  see,  and 
other  than  the  things  I  touch.' '  Nor  would  I  lose  one  of 


72  MISTAKES  OF 

the  wonders.     They  all  tell  us  something  we  want  to  know 
about  the  working  of  the  human  mind.. 

That  is  a  very  poor  and  rude  matter  I  treasure  in  my 
etudy;  a  broken  vase  of  gray  clay,  with  a  few  fishbone 
marks  on  it;  but  if  there  was  not  another  of  them  in  the 
world  I  would  not  exchange  it  for  the  Portland  vase,  for 
this  reason:  That  on  a  day,  so  remote  I  can  not  strike  it. 
some  poor  savage  made  that  vase  in  my  little  town,  to  hold 
the  dust  of  some  one  dear  to  him,  put  those  marks  on  it  for 
a  token  of  what  was  in  his  mind,  and  then  made  a  little 
vault  and  hid  it  away  until  the  sun  of  this  century  should 
shine  on  it,  und  when  I  hold  that  vase,  I  find  a  trace  of  the 
man  who  had  else  been  lost.  There  is  the  faint  beat  of  a 
human  heart  lingering  in  the  clay,  and  a  dim  remembrance 
of  tears,  and  the  marks,  and  as  if  they  should  open  my  grave 
two  thousand  years  from  now,  and  find  the  white  cross  still 
fresh  on  my  coffin,  and  say,  "  Tender,  loving  hands  laid 
that  there,  let  us  deal  with  it  tenderly."  These  rude  and 
half-shapen  things  in  the  old  books  are  the  clue  to  the  man 
who  made  them,  and  how  he  felt,  and  what  he  thought. 
I  would  not  spare  the  least  letter  out  of  them,  but  would 
scan  them  in  all  reverence,  let  who  will  scorn  them.  They 
all  belong  to  our  human  history,  and  it  is  only  their  mis- 
fortune they  have  ever  been  misused.  They  are  included 
in  the  saying  of  the  great  and  wise  German,  that  the  Bible 
begins  nobly  with  Paradise,  the  symbol  of  Faith,  and  con- 
cludes with  the  eternal  kingdom ;  and  with  the  grand,  sweet 
word  of  Thomas  Carlyle:  "  In  the  poorest  cottage  there  is 
one  book  wherein,  for  thousands  of  years,  the  spirit  of  man 
has  found  light  and  nourishment,  and  an  interpreting 
response  to  whatever  is  deepest  in  him.  The  Book 
•wherein  to  this  day  the  eye  that  will  look  well,  the  mystery 
of  existence  reflects  itself,  and  if  not  to  the  satisfvinjr  of 

v          O 

the  outward  sense,  yet  to  the  opening  of  the  inward  sense, 
vrhich  is  the  far  grander  result." 


DR.  COLLYE&S  REPLY.  78 

A   Touching   Illustration — Eloquence    and    Truth — Havelock's 

Saints. 

• 

Of  the  doctrine  advanced  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  and  his  pnr- 
pose  to  have  done  with  the  God  Jesus  believed  in,  and 
show  reason  why  we  should  have  done  with  Him,  there  is 
nothing  to  say  if  I  have  not  said  it  steadily  these  many 
years.  A  remark  of  Charles  Hare  strikes  me  forcibly  as  I 
read  the  few  words  that  are  said  on  this  matter,  in  the 
address,  "There  is  no  being  eloquent  for  atheism.  In  that 
exhausted  receiver  the  mind  can  not  use  its  wings — the 
clearest  proof  that  it  is  out  of  its  element."  For  when  I 
consider  how  eloquent  Mr.  Ingersoll  has  been  at  times,  and 
the  moving  cause  of  it,  I  can  see  that  he  also  must  answer 
to  this  law.  He  never  said  grander  words  than  those  about 
our  boys,  their  mighty  heart,  and  utter  self-sacrifice,  for  the 
noblest  ends.  But  there  never  was  anything  done  since 
the  world  stood,  in  which  the  presence  of  God  could  be 
traced,  and  his  power  felt  m'ore  clearly,  nor  did  ever  men 
make  such  sacrifice  with  a  devouter  sense  that  God  was 
within  it  all,  than  those  most  worthy  his  grand  and  touch- 
ing eulogium.  "  Call  out  Havelock's  saints,"  Sir  Archi- 
bald Campbell  shouted,  when  hope  was  almost  dead  in  the 
great  Sepoy  rebellion  in  India.  Something  must  be  done, 
and  done  on  the  swift  instant,  or  there  would  be  more  woful 
work  among  the  women  and  children.  Call  out  Havelock's 
saints,  tJiey  are  sure  to  be  ready,  and  they  are  never  drunk. 
They  were  of  the  sort  that  carry  a  Bible  in  their  knapsack, 
and  turn  to  chapter  and  verse,  and  sing  psalms  from  old 
Rouse's  version  to  Dundee  and  Elgin,  and  the  Martyrs, 
and  nourish  their  hearts  on  stories  of  the  way  stout  battles 
were  fought  and  grand  martyrdoms  endured  for  God  among 
the  moors.  Call  out  Havelock's  saints,  they  are  always 
ready,  and  never  get  drunk,  and  they  do  fight  like  the  very 
angels.  They  were  but  the  brothers  of  the  great,  simple 


74  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL.    ' . 

souls  who  fought  at  Ball's  Bluff,  and  in  scores  of  battles 
beside,  while  mothers  and  sisters  did  the  prajing  for  the 
moment,  for  they  had  no  time  except  just  to  look  up  and 
hear  that  voice  in  the  heart  saj,  "  Steady,  my  boy,  steady, 
you  are  of  a  grand  stock,  you  must  tell  a  grand  story. 
And  they  told  it,  and  at  the  heart  of  it  all  was  God,  and  a 
new  life  for  the  nation,  and  in  time  a  new  civilization  that 
shall  shed  its  blessing  on  the  whole  waiting  world. 

Atheism— Not  an  Institution  but  a  "  Destitution !  "—The  True  Life. 

I  have  no  stones  to  throw  at  atheism  any  more  than  I 
have  stones  to  throw  at  blindness.  It  can  never  be  more 
than  a  very  sore  and  sad  limitation,  not  an  institution,  but 
a  destitution.  This  Anglo-Saxon  nature  is  not  good  soil 
for  it;  no  arguments  can  make  it  take  hold  and  grow  in  us 
any  more  than  arguments  can  make  roses  take  hold  and 
grow  on  Aberdeen  granite.  Nor  have  I  any  exhortation 
save  this:  That  as  we  stand  as  pioneers  of  the  noblest  and 
fairest  faith  we  can  reach,  a  faith  which  throws  no  strands 
to  stay  itself  on  the  fall,. or  the  flood,  or  the  manna,  or  the 
sun,  standing  still,  or  any  of  these  old  wonders,  but  just 
fronts  the  light  and  drinks  it  in,  we  shall  grow  ever  more 
worthy  to  prove  God's  presence  in  the  world,  by  revealing 
it  in  our  life,  and  in  the  work  he  has  given  us  to  do.  There 
is  no  argument  like  that  which  lies  within  a  sweet  and  true 
life  which  looks  to  God  forever  for  its  inspiration  and  its 
joy.  Let  us  be  right  worthy  of  our  faith. 

Then  shall  this  Western  Goth, 

So  fiercely  practical,  so  keen  of  eye, 

Find  out  some  day  that  nothing  pays  but  God. 

Served  whether  in  the  smoke  of  battle  field, 

In  work  obscure  done  honestly — or  vote 

For  truth  unpopular — or  faith  maintained, 

To  ruinous  convictions — or  good  deeds, 

Wrought  for  good's  sake,  heedless  of  heaven  or  helL 


FRED.  PERUY  POWEES'  HE  PLY.         75 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY. 


The   Sinaitic   Code  —  Solvent  Powers  of  the  Historic   Method  — 
Graphic  Illustration  of  the  Two  Schools. 

CHRISTIANITY,  like  a  fortress  on  an  open  plain,  is  liable  to 
attack  from  opposite  directions.  But  if  is  well  for  the  at- 
tacking parties  to  remember  that  columns  of  argument  do 
not,  like  columns  of  soldiers,  co-operate  when  moving  in 
opposite  directions.  Christianity  is  not  to  be  disposed  of 
bj  proving  that  at  the  same  timo  it  is  and  is  not  a  certain 
thing. 

The  "  historic  method,"  like  every  new  journal,  seems 
"to  meet  a  long-felt  want."  It  has  been  clutched  greed- 
ily and  employed  in  every  conceivable  shape.  It  proves  not 
only  that  whatever  is  is  right,  but  that  whatever  was  was 
right,  and  whatever  will  be  will  be  right.  It  has  been  car- 
ried to  a  point  where  it  undermines  personal  responsibility, 
and  with  it  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  in  the  conclusion  of  his 
Sociology,  enjoins  the  reformer  and  the  philanthropist  from 
activity.  It  eliminates  ethical  considerations  from  the 
mind  of  the  historian.  It  closes  the  eyes  of  society  to  the 
vices  of  its  members,  and  it  lays  its  hand  upon  the  mouth  of 
the  judge  before  whom  stands  a  man  who,  as  the  result  of 
antecedents,  and  in  the  natural  effort  to  harmonize  himself 
with  his  environment,  has  committed  murder. 

Now,  it  is  a  little  singular  that  this  invaluable  historic 
method  should  be  a  legitimate  weapon  against  the  church, 
but  an  illegitimate  weapon  for  the  church.  If  the  church 
is  to  be  allowed  to  use  this  weapon  freely  it  will  have  no 


76  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

difficulty  in  making  a  perfect  defense  for  itself,  its  predeces- 
sor and  all  of  its  members,  no  matter  how  wild  or  wicked. 
The  historic  method  is  a  solvent  in  which  the  inqui- 
sition disappears,  and  which  at  once  removes  those  spots  on 
the  robe  of  religious  history,  the  wars  and  massacres  of  the 
Israelites.  I  have  no  disposition  to  make  any  such  exten- 
sive use  of  the  historic  method  as  this.  But  all  matters  of 
history  are  to  be  studied  as  historical,  not  as  contempora- 
neous. And  it  is  in  the  last  degree  uncandid  for  the  oppo- 
nents of  Christianity  to  make  the  extremest  use  of  the  his- 
toric method  when  it  suits  their  purpose,  and  then,  in 
dealing  with  religious  history,  eliminate  ordinary  historic 
perspective.  In  this  latter  particular  the  enemies  of  the 
church  are  not  alone.  The  Reformation  brought  in  a  re- 
vival of  Judaism,  and  a  large  section  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tianity resolutely  closes  its  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  was  given  several  thousand  years  ago,  and  to  a 
race  wholly  different  in  its  position  from  any  now  existing. 
The  Mosaic  dispensation  is  not  the  only  thing  treated  in 
this  way.  The  directions  given  by  St.  Paul  to  a  particular 
church  at  a  particular  date  are  constantly  appealed  to  in 
the  churches  as  universal  law,  applicable  to  all  churches 
and  throughout  all  ages.  If  a  picture  with  a  man  in  the 
foreground  and  an  elephant  in  the  background  were  shown 
to  two  savages,  one  of  whom  knew  something  about  ele- 
phants, and  the  other  of  whom  did  not,  the  former  would 
insist  upon  it  that  the  artist  was  a  ignoramus  for  painting 
an  elephant  smaller  than  a  man,  and  the  other  would  con- 
clude that  man  was  a  larger  animal  than  an  elephant,  be- 
cause he  appeared  so  in  the  picture.  The  former  repre- 
sents a  school  of  atheists  who  attack  the  ethics  of  the  Sina- 
itic  code,  and  the  latter  represents  a  school  of  devout  be- 
lievers who,  receiving  the  Sinaitic  code  as  a  matter  of  rev- 
elation, feel  compelled  to  defend  it  as  the  truth  and  noth- 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY.  77 

ing  but  the  truth,  and  the  truth  for  all  times  and  all  places. 
It  is  worth  while  to  remember  at  the  very  outset  what  both 
parties  to  the  war  waged  over  the  etnics  of  the  Pentateuch 
seem  disposed  to  ignore,  that  what  are  now  denounced  as 
the  errors  of  the  Sinaitic  code  were  pointed  out  more  than 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago  by  tne  Highest  authority  rec- 
ognized by  the  Christian  world. 

In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  Jesus  Christ  used  the  fol- 
lowing language: 

Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for 
a  toeth.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not  evil ;  but  whosoever 
shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other,  also. — Matt, 
v.,  38,  89. 

The  lex  talionis,  here  repudiated,  was  not  a  rabbinical 
interpolation;  it  was  an  integral  maxim  of  the  Sinaitic  code, 
as  the  following  words,  coming  shortly  after  the  Deca- 
logne,  show: 

And  if  any  mischief  follows,  then  thou  shalt  give  life  for  life,  eye  for 
eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot,  burning  for  burning, 
wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe. — Exodus  xxi.,  23-25. 

Free  divorce  was  another  Sinaitic  error,  so  called,  and  in 
pointing  it  out  Christ  gave  us  the  key  to  the  whole  Mosaic 
dispensation,  as  the  following  passage  shows: 

The  Pharisees  also  came  unto  Him,  tempting  Him,  and  saying  unto 
Him,  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ? 
And  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  not  read  that  He  which 
made  them  at  the  beginning  made  them  male  and  female,  and  said,  for 
this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother  and  shall  cleave  to  his 
wife,  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh  ?  Wherefore  they  are  no  more 
twain,  but  one  flesh.  What,  therefore,  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no 
man  put  asunder.  They  say  unto  Him,  Why  did  Moses  then  command 
to  give  a  writing  of  divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away  ?  He  saith  unto 
them,  Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts,  suffered  you  to  put 
away  your  wives ;  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so.  And  I  say 
unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  except  it  be  for  fornica- 
tion, and  shall  marry  another,  committeth  adultery;  and  whoso  rnarri- 
eth  her  which  he  put  away  doth  commit  adultery. — Matt,  xix.,  3-9. 


78  MISTAKES  OF  IXQBROOLL 


Divine  Adjustment  of  the  Moral  Law  —  Progressive   Elimination 
at  Poly  gamy,  Slavery,  Etc. — Mount  Sinai  and  Mount  Calvary. 

The  "hardness  of  heart1'  referred  to  is  evidently  the 
dullness  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  sense  that  character- 
ized the  almost  savage  slaves  of  the  Egyptians  when  they 
come  np  out  of  Egypt.  Instead  of  imposing  on  them  an 
ethical  system  perfectly  complete  and  perfectly  unintelligi- 
ble to  them  in  their  degraded  condition,  Moses,  under  di- 
rection of  divine  wisdom,  gave  them  a  moral  law  which 
they  could  understand,  and  which  would  develop  in  them  a 
capacity  for  something  purer  and  higher. 

Polygamy  was  tolerated,  not  because  it  was  the  ideal 
system;  not  because  the  deity  of  the  Hebrews  could  devise 
no  other,  but  because  polygamy  is  the  natural  intermedi- 
ate station  between  promiscuity  and  monogamy.  God 
chose  to  make  a  civilized  people  out  of  the  Jews,  not  by 
His  creative  fiat,  but  by  operating  through  natural  laws  of 
sociology.  In  due  time,  when  men  were  prepared  for  it, 
the  law  of  permanent  and  monogamous  marriage  was  pro- 
mulgated, but  it  was  in  advance  of  public  sentiment,  as  is 
ahown  by  the  fact  that  when  Christ,  in  the  passage  above 
quoted,  forbade  free  divorce,  and  proclaimed  the  sanctity  of 
the  marital  relation,  the  disciples  suggested  that  if  thab 
was  the  law  it  was  better  not  to  marry. 

So  slavery  was  tolerated  under  the  Mosaic  law.  But  ser- 
vitude for  a  short  term  of  years  was  substituted  for  per- 
manent and  hereditary  servitude,  and  the  law  threw  some 
protection  about  the  person  of  the  slave.  The  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation is  not  responsible  for  a  defense  of  slavery.  It 
tolerated  an  intermediate  state  between  barbarism  and  civ- 
ilization. 

A  fact  of  vast  importance  to  notice  is  that  this  Mosaic 
system  contained  within  itself  the  seeds  which,  when 


FRED.  PERRT  POWERS'  REPLY.  70 

humanity  had  outgrown  the  old  dispensation,  would  mature 
into  a  new  dispensation  so  far  in  advance  of  human  attain- 
ments, that  after  nearly  nineteen  centuries  the  human  race 
has  not  begun  to  catch  upon  it:  Christ  expounded  the  Old 
Testament  references  to  Himself,  beginning  with  Moses. 

7  O  O 

"When  Sinai  had  reduced  society  to  order,  and  stamped  out 
paganism,  then  Calvary  came  and  appealed  to  all  that  was 
highest  and  purest  in  man.  Even  at  this  late  day  there 
are  not  many  souls  that  really  comprehend  the  full  meaning 
of  Calvary  and  whose  lives  give  evidence  of  that  fact. 
When  any  considerable  portion  of  the  human  race  has 
received  all  that  Calvary  can  confer,  a  new  dispensation 
may  be  expected. 

In  this  sense  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  perfect  and 
complete.  As  promulgated  on  Mount  Sinai,  it  was  adapted 
only  to  a  certain  low  condition  of  mankind.  But  it  contained 
a  vital  principle,  which  enabled  it  to  expand  as  fast  as 
civilization  advanced.  Starting  with  the  Decalogue,  it 
developed  the  penitential  psalms  and  the  noble  exhorta- 
tions of  the  prophets,  and  finally  the  Beatitudes.  Begin- 
ning with  a  catalogue  of  penalties,  it  in  course  of  time 
developed  sorrow  for  sin,  and  at  last  that  love  to  God  which 
withholds  from  sin.  This  system  of  religion  has  developed 
faster  than  civilization  has  advanced.  The  Israelites  at  the 
foot  of  Mount  Sinai  probably  knew  something  of  the  wrong- 
fulness  of  murder,  theft  and  adultery.  But,  to-day,  in 
spite  of  great  moral  advances — to-day,  nineteen  centuries 
after  Christ — how  much  does  the  human  race  really  know 
about  "  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteousness  ?  "  Let 
the  foolish  declaration  that  we  have  outgrown  Christianity 
come  from  those  who  have  been  filled,  and  who  still  want 
something  more. 

The  Decalogue  is  by  no  means  the  complete  moral  code 
that  it  is  often  represented  to  be,  and  it  would  be  singularly 


80  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

out  of  place  in  a  Christian  church  were  it  not  that,  even 
to-day,  and  in  the  United  States,  there  are  many  persons 
incapable  of  comprehending  the  Beatitudes  which  compre- 
hend all  there  is  in  the  Decalogue,  and  vastly  more.  The 
seventh  commandment  does  not  apply  to  crimes,  both 
participants  in  which  are  unmarried,  and  the  Mosaic  law 
treated  the  seduction  of  an  unbetrothed  bondmaid  as  a 
trivial  offense,  sufficiently  atoned  for  by  the  sacrifice  of  a 
ram.  The  seduction  of  a  free  maid,  if  she  was  not  be- 
trothed, was  atoned  for  by  marriage.  It  was  on  account 
of  the  "  hardness  of  their  hearts,"  their  infancy  in  ethics, 
that  this  easy-going  statute  regarding  the  sexes  was  enacted. 
But  Christ  said  : 

Te  have  heard  that  it  was  said  of  them  of  old  time,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
commit  adultery;"  but  I  say  unto  you.  That  whosoever  looketh  on  a 
woman  to  lust  after  her  hath  committed  adultery  with  her  already  in' 
his  heart.— Matt,  v.,  27,  28. 

The  Decalogue  said,  "Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  but  Jesus 
Christ  added  to  this  as  follows  : 

Whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall  be  in  dan 
ger  of  the  judgment. — Matt,  v.,  22. 

The  Decalogue  forbade  the  bearing  of  false  witness;  it 
was  silent  as  to  ordinary  mendacity.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment this  law  is  extended  to  cover  all  untruthfulness. 

Purpose  and  Potency  of  the  Mosaic  Law. 

The  purpose  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  to  start  the  Israelites 
on  the  path  of  spiritual  enlightenment.  It  was  a  provi- 
sional system,  superseded  at  the  right  time  by  Christianity. 
The  sacrifices  were  fines  imposed  on  the  guilty.  They  were 
also  daily  reminded  of  the  existence  of  God,  and  the  blood 
pouring  from  the  altar  taught  the  serious  nature  and  fatal 
consequences  of  sin  as  nothing  else  would.  Of  course,  to 
a  set  of  modern  sophists,  who  deny  the  existence  of  sin,, 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY.  81 

• 
the  sacrifices  are  simply  meaningless,  revolving  spectacles; 

but  the  man  who  hasn't  studied  the  subject  enough  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  sacrifices  is  estopped 
from  discussing  them  in  public. 

The  barbarities  of  the  Mosaic  system  form  a  pet  subject 
of  denunciation  by  gentlemen  who  have  a  repugnance  to 
study,  coupled  with  a  mania  for  delivering  lectures,  when 
the  latter  can  be  done  at  a  pecuniary  profit.  If  a  man 
thinks  it  just  as  well  to  worship  the  sun  or  a  bull  as  to 
worship  Jehovah,  of  course  he  will  regard  the  penalties 
denounced  against  idolatry  as  tyrannical  and  barbarous. 
But  no  man,  unless  he  has  a  purpose  to  accomplish  thereby, 
can  shut  his  eyes  to  the  barrier  that  idolatry  places  in  the 
way  of  mental  or  moral  progress,  or  both.  The  interests  of 
the  human  race  demanded  that  paganism  should  be  roofed 
out  somewhere,  if  not  everywhere.  The  promise  to  Abra- 
ham, that  in  his  seed  should  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed,  has  been  fulfilled,  but  that  has  been  accomplished 
only  by  the  most  rigorous  hostility  to  paganism  among  the 
Jews.  In  spite  of  all  the  stern  laws  of  Moses,  Israel  again 
and  again  relapsed  into  paganism;  yet  it  was  an  absolute 
necessity  that  if  what  we  now  know  as  civilization  was  ever 
to  come,  paganism  must  in  some  corner  of  tho  world  be 
stamped  out,  and  the  way  prepared  for  Christianity.  To 
teach  the  Israelites  what  a  moral  contagion  was  idolatry, 
they  had  to  be  taught  that  it  was  a  physical  contagion, 
contaminating  everything  connected  with  the  idolator.  Had 
not  this  been  done,  the  Israelites  would  have  remained, 
like  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  immersed  in  the  unspeakably 
unclean  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte  and  Moloch.  Cost 
what  it  might,  the  ravages  of  the  pestilence  had  to  be 
checked  somewhere. 
6 


83  MISTAKES  OF  INQEXSOLL. 


Excessive  Wickedness  and  Proportionate  Punishment — The  Court 
of  Heaven  vs.  the  Court  of  Earth. 

Of  course,  the  wars  of  the  Israelites  and  the  annihilation 
of  certain  tribes  are  held  to  be  horrible  cruelties  by  the 
sophists  of  the  present  day.  But  we  are  distinctly  told 
that  it  was  for  their  extraordinary  wickedness  that  these 
tribes  were  exterminated.  We  are  again  and  again  told 
that  it  was  for  the  wickedness  of  the  Amalekites  that  their 
destruction  was  commanded.  We  get  some  glimpses  of 
the  unmentionable  vileness  of  some  of  these  Canaanitish 
tribes.  The  fact  was  that  they  were  ulcers  on  the  body  of 
the  human  race  which  had  to  be  cut  out.  Possibly  the 
innocent  suffered  with  the  guilty,  and  possibly  there  were 
no  innocent  except  the  infants,  whom  it  would  have 
been  no  mercy  to  save  after  their  unclean  parents  were 
destroyed.  It  is  probable  that  the  moral  taint  had  so  rooted 
itself  in  the  physical  system  that,  had  the  children  been 
spared,  they  would  have  inevitably  developed  into  adults  as 
unclean  as  their  parents.  The  passages  sometimes  quoted 
to  show  that  Jehovah  was  vindicative,  are  passages  aimed 
at  sin.  The  most  ample  amnesty  to  the  repentant  is  prom- 
ised from  one  end  of  Genesis  to  the  other  end  of  Revelation. 
The  people  who  denounce  the  divine  government,  as  mani- 
fest in  the  Old  Testament,  either  deny  that  there  is  any 
such  thing  as  sin,  or,  which  is  often  the  case,  they  have 
admirable  reasons  for  being  angry  because  sin  is  punished. 
The  gentlemen  who  denounce  the  destruction  of  Sodom  are 
necessarily  apologists  for  the  Sodomists. 

When  malignancy  is  charged  against  Jehovah  it  is  im- 
portant to  remember  that  the  presence  of  five  righteous 
persons  would  have  saved  Sodom.  There  was  only  one 
righteous  person,  and  not  only  was  he  enabled  to  escape 
but  he  secured  immunity  for  his  family.  Nineveh  was 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY.  83 

spared  because  the  people  repented.  The  Israelites  were 
delivered  from  their  enemies  when  they  forsook  their  sins. 
On  the  other  hand  Nathan's  rebuke  to  David  is  a  matter  of 
record,  and  Solomon's  licentiousness  was  punished  by  the 
revolt  of  Jeroboam  and  the  ten  tribes.  The  statement  that 
Jehovah  disregarded  distinctions  of  right  ami  wrong,  or 
treated  the  innocent  and  guilty  alike,  or  took  pleasure  in 
the  death  even  of  the  wicked  is  false,  and  known  to  be  so 
by  the  persons  who  make  it.  The  very  sentiment  of  hu- 
manity which  prompts  certain  persons  to  denounce  the  di- 
vine government  of  the  Jews  is  found  only  where  Chris- 
tianity, the  legitimate  successor  of  Judaism,  prevails. 

"What  are  denounced  as  massacres  committed  by  the 
Israelites  were  judicial  executions  performed  under  the  or- 
ders of  the  only  court  in  the  universe  which  has  perfect  in- 
formation of  the  cases  tried  before  it,  and  which  is  per- 
fectly free  from  weaknesses.  To  object  to  the  judgment 
one  must  either  show  that  the  condemned  were  innocent, 
which  at  this  late  day  can  not  be  shown,  or  one  must  show 
that  the  crimes  were  less  heinous  than  the  court  held  them 
to  be,  which  is  to  become  an  apologist  for  crimes  of  every 
character,  some  of  which  are  not  even  to  be  named.  It  is 
also  to  be  remembered  that  the  divine  government  is  the 
creator  of  society,  instead  of  the  creature  of  society,  as  is 
human  government.  The  former  is,  therefore,  not  to  be 
judged  precisely  as  the  latter  is,  even  though  abstract 
justice  is  the  same  in  Heaven  that  it  is  on  earth.  The 
charge  of  vindictiveness  is  absolutely  without  foundation; 
find,  by  the  way,  of  all  the  nations  known  to  the  Jews  the 
one  we  might  suppose  them  most  hostile  to  is  the  Egypt- 
ian, for  it  was  in  Egypt-  that  the  Israelites  were  enslaved 
*nd  maltreated.  Yet  the  divine  command,  coming  from 
Moses,  was  that  the  Israelites  should  in  no  case  oppress 
the  Egyptians,  and  the  reason  was  that  they  were  once  so- 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

jourmiv;  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  the  very  reason  we  might 
suppose  vhy  they  should  be  especially  bitter  toward  the 
Egyptians. 

Able  Bodied  Mendacity  and  Civilization — Love  and   Obedience. 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  deuce  ignorance  or  able-bodied 
mendacity  in  circulation  regarding  the  ethics  of  the  New 
Testament.  Jesus  Christ  and  His  apostles  upheld  neither 
political  nor  domestic  despotism.  But  it  is  a  fact  which 
lecturers  should  understand  that  civil  order  is  the  first 
step  toward  civilization.  Despotism  is  more  conducive 
to  civilization  than  anarchy  is.  Furthermore,  when  Paul 
wrote  his  epistles  the  Roman  officials  suspected  all  Chris- 
tians of  being  hostile  to  the  government,  and  it  was  espe- 
cially necessary  that  the  Roman  power  should  understand 
by  the  loyalty  of  the  Christians  that  He  whom  they  called 
their  king  was  a  spiritual  sovereign,  and  not  a  rival  of  the 
emperor, 

"WTiat  Paul  at  a  particular  time  wrote  to  a  particular 
church  is  by  no  means  necessarily  a  universal  law.  What 
is  particularly  to  be  noted  is  that  the  exhortations  to  obe- 
dience on  the  part  of  the  citizen,  the  wife,  the  child  and 
the  servant  are  coupled  with  and  conditioned  on  exhorta- 
tions to  the  ruler,  the  husband,  the  parent  and  the  master, 
which  certain  uncandid  and  irrational  persons,  some  of 
whom  are  inside  the  church  and  some  of  whom  are  outside 
of  it,  are  careful  to  ignore.  In  Ephesians  v.  22,  Paul  com- 
mands wives  to  submit  themselves  to  their  husbands,  but 
in  the  twenty-fifth  verse  husbands  are  commanded  to  love 
their  wives  as  Christ  loves  His  church.  Now,  if  the  hus- 
band fulfills  his  part  of  the  mutual  obligation,  the  wife's 
submission  will  not  be  of  a  very  mental  character.  In 
Ephesians  vi.  1,  children  are  commanded  to  obey  their  par- 
ents, but  in  the  fourth  verse  fathers  are  commanded  not 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY.  85 

to  provoke  their  children  to  wrath,  but  to  bring  them  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  In  the  next 
verse  servants  are  commanded  to  obey  their  masters,  but 
in  the  ninth  verse  we  read,  "And,  ye  masters,  do  the  same 
things  unto  them,  forbearing  threatening,  knowing  that 
your  Master  also  is  in  Heaven ;  neither  is  there  respect  of 
person  with  Him."  In  Hebrews  xiii.  17,  we  read,  "  Obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves; 
for  they  watch  for  your  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account." 
The  command  to  obey  rules  is  conditioned  on  the  dis- 
charge of  their  duties  by  the  rulers. 

Now,  in  omitting  one  half  of  each  double  command,  and 
on  the  strength  of  the  other  half  arraigning  Christianity 
as  the  ally  of  domestic  and  political  tyranny,  modern  "free 
thought"  is  accomplishing  a  great  work,  is  it  not?  The 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  "  free  thought  "  seems  to 
be  that  it  is  thought  freed  from  all  subservience  to  facts. 

Mr.  Powers'  Pungent  Peroration. 

Theology  has  made  many  shipwrecks  by  an  excess  of  a, 
priori  reasoning,  and  by  reasoning  deductively  when  the 
means  of  reasoning  inductively  exist.  But  what  is  termed 
materialism  is  habitually  doing  the  same  thing,  if  it  can 
make  a  point  against  Christianity  by  so  doing.  The  ene- 
mies of  Calvinism  have  denounced  it  because  it  promoted 
immorality.  Yet  a  severer  code  of  morals  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  than  that  maintained  by  the  English  Puritans, 
the  Scotch  Covenanters,  and  the  French  Huguenots,  all  Cal- 
rinists.  Would  it  not  be  just  as  rational  to  judge  Calvinism 
by  its  fruits  as  to  judge  its  fruits  by  Calvinism? 

When  man  has  argued  from  the  New  Testament  that 
Christianity  must  be  the  ally  of  despotism,  and  then  looks 
about  him  and  sees  that  civil  liberty  is  not  known  outside 
of  Christian  lands,  and  has  its  fullest  development  in  Eng- 


86  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

land  and  America,  where  Christianity  in  its  simplest  forms 
prevail,  and  where  there  are  the  fewest  barriers  between 
the  human  soul  and  the  New  Testament  itself;  when  he 
has  argued  from  the  Xew  Testament  to  show  that  Chris- 
tianity is  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of  womanhood,  and 
then  looks  around  and  sees  womanhood  honored  only  in 
Christian  countries,  constantly  employed  by  and  honored . 
in  the  church,  must  it  not  occur  to  him  with  painful  force 
that  he  is  a  good  deal  off  the  track  ? 

It  would  not  be  necessary  to  remind  philosophers  of  the 
fact,  but  it  is  necessary  to  remind  sophists  that  the  Jews  did 
a  good  many  things  that  the  Mosaic  dispensation  is  not 
responsible  for,  and  that  it  is  mere  idiocy  to  hold  Chris- 
tianity responsible  for  everything  done  by  individuals  or 
associations  in  its  name.  The  man  who  can  riot  discrim- 
inate between  the  legitimate  results  of  a  system,  and  the 
abuses  grafted  on  to  it  by  its  professed  adherents,  is  plainly 
unfit  to  debate  philosophical  questions. 

If  people  made  half  the  effort  to  understand  the  Bible 
that  they  make  to  discard  it,  they  wouldn't  be  so  funny  a& 
they  are  now,  but  they  would  know  more. 


THERE  are  over  two  hundred  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  prophesied  about  Christ,  and  every  one  of  them 
has  come  true. — D.  L.  Moody. 

In  regard  to  the  Great  Book,  I  have  only  to  say  it  is  the 
best  gift  which  God  has  given  to  man.  All  the  good  from 
the  Saviour  of  the  World  is  communicated  through  this 
Book.  But  for  this  Book  we  could  not  know  right  from 
wrong.  All  those  things  desirable  to  man  are  contained 
in  it.  I  return  you  my  sincere  thanks  for  this  very  elegant 
copy  of  the  Great  Book  of  God  which  you  present. — Abra- 
ham Lincoln,  on  re<>eiving  a  present  of  a  Bible. 


ITEMS.  37 

I  DEFT  you  all,  as  many  as  are  here,  to  prepare  a  tale  so 
simple  and  so  touching,  as  the  tale  of  the  passion  and  death 
of  Jesus  Christ,  whose  influence  will  be  the  same  after  so 
many  centuries. — Denis  Diderot. 

THE  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the  world.  It  contains 
more  of  my  little  philosophy  than  all  the  libraries  I  have 
seen. — John  Adams.  (Second  President  of  United  States.} 

AND,  finally,  I  may  state,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  whole 
matter,  that  the  Bible  contains  within  itself  all  that,  under 
God,  is  required  to  account  for  and  dispose  of  all  forms  of 
infidelity,  and  to  turn  to  the  best  and  highest  uses  all  that 
man  can  learn  of  nature. — Chancellor  Dawson. 

THE  Bible  is  the  only  cement  of  nations,  and  the  only 
cement  that  can  bind  religious  hearts  together. — Chevalier 
Bunsen. 

THE  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God — with  all  the  peculiarities 
of  man,  and  all  the  authority  of  God. — Prof.  Murphy. 

FROM  the  time  that,  at  my  mother's  feet,  or  on  my  fa- 
ther's knee,  I  first  learned  to  lisp  verses  from  the  sacred 
writings,  they  have  been  my  daily  study  and  vigilant  con- 
templation. If  there  be  anything  in  my  style  or  thoughts 
to  be  commended,  the  credit  is  due  to  my  kind  parents  in 
instilling  into  my  mind  an  early  love  of  the  Scriptures. — 
Daniel  Webster. 

THE  same  divine  hand  which  lifted  up  before  the  eyes 
of  Daniel  and  of  Isaiah  the  veil  which  covered  the  tableau 
of  the  time  to  come,  unveiled  before  the  eyes  of  the  author 
of  Genesis  the  earliest  ages  of  the  creation.  And  Moses 
was  the  prophet  of  the  past,  as  Daniel  and  Isaiah  and  many 
others  were  the  prophets  of  the  future. — Prof.  Guyot. 

WE  are  persuaded  that  there  is  no  book  by  the  perusal 
of  which  the  mind  is  so  much  strengthened  and  so  much 
enlarged  as  it  is  by  the  perusal  of  the  Bible. — Dr.  Melville. 


J  ''holographed  by  Mosher.J 


BfSHOI'  CHENEY*®  REPLY. 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY. 


How  the  Question  of  Forgery  Applies  to  the  Five  Books  of  Moses. 

IN  looking  at  almost  any  object  in  the  world  of  nature 
round  about,  it  becomes  remarkable  only  from  certain  points 
of  view.  The  cathedral  rocks  that  form  one  of  the  glories 
of  the  Yosemite  Yalley  differ  not  much  from  any  other  great 
pile  of  jagged  cliffs,  except  in  a  certain  position,  where  the 
great  mass  of  Gothic  spires  and  arches  appear  clothed  with 
evergreen  ivy.  Only  as  you  reach  a  certain  point  where 
Profile  Notch  penetrates  the  White  Mountains,  do  you  see  far 
up,  up  on  the  topmost  cliff,  the  formation  of  a  face  cut  in  the 
solid  granite  by  nature's  own  chisel.  But  the  case  of  alleged 
forgery  before  us  is  extraordinary  from  every  point  of  view, 
for  forgery  is  generally  something  which  concerns  some 
brief  document,  something  that  requires  only  a  signature 
in  order  to  secure  its  currency.  The  longer  and  more  elab- 
orate the  document  which  forgery  produces,  the  more  danger 
there  must  inevitably  be  of  its  final  and  ultimate  detection. 
But  here  are  five  long  historic  books.  They  are  full  of 
details.  They  cover  vast  periods  of  time.  Thoy  enter  into 
a  variety  of  topics.  Incidentally  they  discuss  not  only  ques- 
tions of  religion,  but  of  law^of  politics,  of  commerce,  even 
of  hygiene — medical  laws  of  health.  Was  ever  forgery  com- 
mitted before  or  since  on  such  a  gigantic  scale  as  this? 
Moreover,  there  is  no  crime  that  is  liable  to  be  so  speedily 
detected  as  forgery.  The  man  who  signs  some  document 
with  another's  name  rarely  goes  down  to  the  grave  without 
meeting  his  punishment  here  on  earth.  Why,  only  a  few 
weeks  ago,  the  doors  of  our  penitentiary,  in  the  State  of 


90  MISTAKES  OP  INGERSOLL. 

Illinois,  closed  upon  a  prisoner  who  had  affixed  the  name  of 
another,  whose  name  was  better  than  his  own,  to  a  check 
upon  which  he  had  received  the  money;  but  only  one  month 
intervened  as  a  gap  between  that  crime  and  the  punishment 
it  merited  and  received. 

It  was  a  hundred  years  ago,  that  Thomas  Chatterton,  one 
of  the  most  wonderful  men,  or  boys,  I  might  rather  say, 
that  England  has  ever  produced,  forged  a  huge  mass  of 
papers,  professedly  historical,  that  were  dated  away  back 
in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries.  The  style  was 
that  of  the  monks  and  chroniclers,  which  he  had  imitated 
with  the  greatest  possible  perfection.  The  references  to 
the  customs  of  that  ancient  period  were  such  as  to  avoid 
detection,  and  Chatterton,  in  the  precocity  of  his  intellect, 
and  in  the  versatility  of  his  talent,  was  without  a  peer  in 
English  literary  history.  The  English  literary  world  re- 
ceived it  as  a  revelation  out  of  lost  centuries.  The  great 
scholars  of  England  were  deceived.  But  it  only  took 
three  years  to  expose  to  every  eye  the  fraud  that  had  been 
committed,  and  Chatterton,  whom  Wordsworth  called  the 
"marvelous  boy,"  ended  his  career  in  a  suicide's  grave.  O, 
1  >rethren !  who  can  count  the  years,  who  can  enumerate  the 
centuries  which  have  rolled  over  this  world  of  ours  since  the 
alleged  forgery  of  this  man  Moses!  And  yet  to-day,  after 
the  lapse  of  centuries,  there  are  more  people  who  believe  in 
that  forgery  as  the  genuine  work  of  the  man  whom  God 
appointed  the  great  law-giver  and  leader  of  Israel,  there  are 
more  people  who  hang  their  hopes  for  time  and  eternity  on 
this  alleged  fraud,  and  that  which  has  grown  out  of  this 
alleged  fraud — the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — than 
ever  before  in  two  thousand  years.  Am  I  not  then  justified 
in  saying  that  if  this  be  a  forgery,  which  is  contained  in 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  it  is  the  most  extraordinary  forgery 
that  has  ever  been  committed  in  the  world  since  words 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  91 

expressed  human  thought,  or  human  beings  learned  to  wield 
a  pen? 

The   "  Common   Ground "  of  the  Contending  Parties — Logical 
Position  of  Ezra. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to 
certain  facts  concerning  the  Mosaic  record.  In  all  contro- 
versies in  every  department  of  human  thought  there  are 
certain  points  which  are  regarded  as  neutral  ground.  "When 
our  great  civil  war  shook  this  land  from  centre  to  circum- 
ference and  two  mighty  armies  were  face  to  face  in  the 
Yalley  of  the  Tennessee,  the  stars  and  stripes  floated  in  the 
same  breeze  that  wafted  the  stars  and  the  bars  ;  the  strains 
of  "Dixie"  and  "My  Maryland"  commingled  with 
"Hail  Columbia"  and  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner  ;"  the 
soldiers  of  the  different  armies  exchanged  such  commodi- 
ties as  they  possessed,  as  if  they  had  been  neighbors  in 
peace  at  home.  No  wonder  that  finally  it  came  to  pass 
that  between  these  armies  there  was  what  is  known  as 
neutral  ground,  on  which  it  was  agreed  that  the  soldiers  of 
one  side  should  not  fire  on  those  of  the  other.  Now,  is 
there  any  such  ground  as  that  between  those  who  defend 
what  are  known  as  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  those  who 
declare  they  were  never  written  by  Moses  at  all  ?  Is  there 
any  point,  I  say,  in  this  controversy  where  the  skeptic  and 
the  believer  can  come  to  stand  upon  one  common  ground  ? 
If  we  can  find  such  a  neutral  ground  as  that,  it  will  save 
us  a  long,  tirdsome,  profitless  debate. 

Now,  such  a  ground  I  think  we  have  in  the  life  and  his- 
tory of  Ezra,  the  writer  of  the  book  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  bears  his  name.  It  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that 
this  man  was  a  scribe  of  the  Jewish  law  after  the  close  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity.  After  the  people  had  returned 
from  the  land  of  their  exile  into  the  land  of  their  fathers, 


92  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

he  gathered  into  one  great  collection  all  these  sacred  writ- 
ings that  were  held  by  the  Jews  to  be  the  inspired  word 
of  God.  No  infidel  that  I  am  aware  of  has  ever  questioned 
the  fact  that  in  this  collection  of  Ezra  was  contained  the 
five  books  of  Moses.  It  has  been  claimed  by  some  of  the 
least  scholarly  of  infidels  that  Ezra  wrote  those  five  books. 
But  that  idea  was  found  visionary  and  was  long  ago  given 
up  by  those  who  opposed  the  truth  of  Christianity.  But 
the  fact  remains  that  no  one,  Christian  or  unbeliever,  to-day 
questions  the  historic  fact  that  the  five  books  of  Moses,  as 
we  now  accept  them,  were  received  as  the  writings  of  the 
lawgiver  of  the  Jewish  people  when  Ezra  was  at  the  acme 
of  his  influence  after  the  Baylonian  captivity.  But  they 
state  that  it  was  universally  conceded  that  it  was  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  In  other 
words,  it  was  admitted  that  every  Jew  who  returned  out  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  held  these  five  books  to  be  the 
works  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God,  twenty-three  hundred 
years  ago. 

The  Bishop  Planting  Signals  on  the  Mountain  Tops  of  History — 
Survey  of  the  New  Moses  Air  Line. 

We  stand,  then,  without  dispute,  without  any  controversy, 
at  this  point  of  time — four  hundred  and  fifty  years  before 
the  birth  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Now,  fix 
that  point  in  your  memory  while  I  attempt,  like  a  civil  en- 
gineer penetrating  some  wilderness,  to  plant  the  signal 
on  some  more  remote  mountain  top  of  history.  Now,  all 
the  ancient  writings,  whether  Egyptian  or  Chaldean,  cor- 
roborate the  testimony  of  the  Bible  that  these  Hebrews 
were  slaves  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  They  also  agree  that 
they  migrated  into  Southern  Syria,  under  the  leadership  of 
a  man  who  was  called  Moses — a  word  which  meant  ''  one 
drawn  out  of  the  water."  It  is  also  universally  allowed 
that  they  settled  in  this  new  land,  which  had  long  before 


BISHOP  CHENEYS  REPLY.  93 

been  promised  to  their  fathers,  about  the  year  1450  before 
Christ.  We  have  established  then  our  second  date — a  date 
which  no  skeptic  has  ever  called  in  question.  When  our 
great  tunnel  that  brings  the  pure  water  of  Lake  Michigan 
into  every  home  and  household  in  this  city  was  in  process 
of  construction,  the  workmen  began  at  either  end.  There 
was  a  shaft  out  in  yonder  crib,  and  there  was  another  on 
the  shore,  and  underneath  the  waves  the  two  parties  of 
toilers  worked  toward  each  other.  And  so  it  is  with  us. 
'  We  tunnel  between  our  two  shafts.  The  date  450  B.  C.  and 
the  date  1450  B.  C. — only  one  thousand  years  are  to  be  ac- 
counted for.  Does  that  seem  along  period  of  time  to  you? 
I  admit  that  it  does,  but  not  in  the  history  of  nations.  It 
is  only  a  trifle  more  than  the  time  in  which  you  and  I  are 
living  is  removed  from  the  time  of  William  of  Normandy, 
who  conquered  Harold  and  the  English  barons. 

Now  we  will  cross  the  sea  to  the  old  tower  that  still 
recalls  the  memory  of  William  the  Conqueror.  We  will 
enter  the  office  of  public  records,  and  in  that  fire-proof  vault, 
guarded  as  they  guard  the  specie  that  is  gathered  into  the 
treasury  of  the  nation,  is  a  book  in  two  huge  volumes  of 
/ellum.  It  is  known  as  the  u  Doomsday  Book."  In  the, 
year  1086,  eight  hundred  years  ago,  remember,  William  the 
Conqueror  caused  that  record  to  be  prepared.  It  is  nearly 
as  old  as  the  five  books  of  Moses,  the  Pentateuch,  was  in 
the  days  of  Ezra  the  scribe.  But  not  a  page  of  the 
"Doomsday  Book'-  'has  been  lost;  not  a  line  has  been 
altered;  not  a  letter  erased.  Its  pages  read  to-day  as  they 
did  in  this  old  time  when  the  Norman  heel  was  on  the 
Saxon  neck — eight  centuries  ago.  The  ink  is  as  fresh 
on  'the  parchment  as  though  that  parchment  were  unstained 
by  age.  Do  you  ask  how  it  is  that  the  record  has  remained 
uncorrupted?  Do  you  ask  how  it  is  that  after  all  the  revo- 
lutions that  have  swept  over  England,  after  all  the  changes 


94  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

of  royal  houses,  and  the  dissolutions  of  powerful  parties, 
that  that  has  remained  perfectly  unaltered?  The  answer  ia 
a  perfectly  easy  one  to  give.  It  is  because  "  Doomsdaj 
Book  "  contains  the  name  of  every  man,  who,  in  the  daya 
of  William  the  Conqueror,  owned  one  rood  of  English  soil. 
It  contains  a  description  of  the  lands  throughout  the  realm. 
It  gives  the  boundaries  of  every  great  estate,  and  every  old 
Engiish  family  must,  therefore,  find  the  roots  of  i':s  gene- 
alogy in  that  old  book  of  the  early  times  of  the  Normaa 
conquest.  It  gives  the  title  to  every  acre  of  land  in  Eng- 
land. Thus,  two  of  the  strongest  motives  that  can  influence 
the  human  mind  and  the  human  will,  have  conspired  to 
guard  this  "  Doomsday  Book  "  with  a  jealous  and  tireleas 
care. 

The  possession  of  a  great  name,  and  the  possession  of 
landed  property  are  wrapped  up  in  England  in  the  safety  of 
that  one  book.  Now,  exactly  the  same  motives  conspired 
for  the  preservation,  from  all  corruption,  of  the  five  books 
of  Moses.  They  contain  the  list  of  those  who  came  out  of 
Egypt  with  Moses  and  entered  into  Palestine;  they  gave  a 
description  of  the  land  that  was  apportioned  to  each  and 
every  name.  To  lose  these  books,  which  the  Jews  ever 
regarded  as  a  precious  treasure,  the  genealogy  of  their 
household — to  suffer  them  to  be  tampered  with,  was  to 
unsettle  the  title  to  every  man's  field  from  Dan  to  Beersheba. 

If  the  "  Doomsday  Book  "  has  survived,  uncorrupted, 
what  reason  on  earth  is  there  to  doubt  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  preserved  intact  during  the  thousand  years  that 
intervened  between  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  time  of  Ezra? 
But  I  need  not  stop  here.  Ezra,  as  I  have  said,  was  one  of 
the  captives  who  returned  out  of  exile.  But  Daniel,  long 
before  the  time  of  Ezra,  speaks  of  this  law  of  Moses.  He 
bases  his  own  conduct  and  his  own  private  character  upon 
it.  Daniel  brings  us  a  hundred  years  nearer  to  the  days 


BISHOP  CUE  NET'S  REPLY.  95 

when  Moses  gave  that  law  to  the  world.  When  King  Josiah 
mounted  the  throne  of  Judah  he  found  that  throne  pol- 
luted by  the  wickedness  that  characterized  the  reign  of  his 
father,  King  Manasseh,  and  then  there  came  an  overwhelm' 
ing  and  powerful  revival  of  religion  throughout  the  king- 
dom. Monarch  and  subject  united  in  humiliation  before 
God.  Numbers  of  people  bowed  down  before  the  Jehovah 
whom  they  had  offended.  But.  we  all  distinctly  know  that 
the  root  and  the  seed  out  of  which  this  revival  sprung  was 
the  finding  of  the  copy  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and 
learning  there  what  Moses  had  commanded  against  the  sin 
of  idolatry.  I  have  reached  a  point  nearer  yet  to  the  time 
of  Moses  himself.  I  will  hasten  on. 

Termination  of  the  Great  Air  Line. 

One  thousand  and  four  years  before  Christ,  Solomon 
regulated  the  temple  service  and  worship,  but  he  regulated  it, 
we  are  distinctly  told,  according  to  the  law  that  was 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  And  we  are  within  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  of  the  death  of  Moses.  But  David 
refers  constantly  to  the  five  books  of  Moses  in  the  psalms. 
The  law  of  Moses  was  the  foundation  on  which  all  the  relig- 
ious character  of  the  psalms  of  David  rest.  Before  David 
was  Samuel.  His  entire  career  pre-supposes  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Mosaic  books.  But  only  three  hundred 
and  fifty  years  intervened  between  Samuel  and  Moses. 
Joshua  succeeded  Moses  as  the  leader  of  the  chosen  people. 
Again  and  again  in  his  addresses  to  the  people,  did  he 
reprove,  exhort  and  encourage  Israel,  but  everywhere  on 
the  basis  of  the  books  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Thus,  we  have 
link  by  link  carried  back  this  chain  of  testimony  to  the  very 
days  in  which  Moses  lived.  Now  we  want  no  better  proof 
than  that  in  the  secular  history.  Suppose  the  farewell 
address  of  George  Washington  had  been  made  the  object  of 


96  MISTAKES  OF  INQEB80LL. 

skeptical  criticism;  suppose  that  it  had  been  denied  that  it 
had  been  written  by  "Washington,  and  if  I  find  it  alluded  to 
in  Mr.  Lincoln's  address  at  the  monument-raising  in  Gettys- 
burg; if  I  find  in  one  of  his  speeches  that  President  Polfe 
also  spoke  of  it;  if  this  is  true  of  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  and  Mr. 
Madison  before  him,  and  if  even  John  Adams,  the  sue- 
cessor  of  George  Washington  in  the  presidential  chair, 
refers  to  that  address — why  then,  every  sensible  man  will 
say  that  it  is  the  nearest  equivalent  of  mathematical  demon- 
stration that  can  possibly  be  given  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  document  to  which  I  have  referred. 

Genealogical  Reflections. 

Now,  I  want  you  to  notice  again  that  if  these  writings 
were  forged,  they  were  forged  by  men,  who  even  in  so 
doing,  blackened  the  character  of  their  own  lineage  and  an- 
cestry. It  has  been  well  said  that  a  man  whose  chief  glory 
is  in  his  ancestors,  is  very  like  a  potato — the  best  part  of 
him  is  under  ground.  But  after  all  there  is  no  good  man 
who  does  not  rejoice — and  thank  God  for  the  fact — when 
he  is  able  to  trace  back  a  long  line  of  God-fearing,  pure- 
living,  honest  men  and  women  as  the  seed  from  whence  he 
sprang.  If  I  go  to  work  and  forgo  a  genealogy  for  my- 
self, I  certainly  will  not  manufacture  one  that  describes 
my  forefathers  as  the  blackest  set  of  criminals  that  ever 
escaped  from  a  penitentiary.  No  one  pretends  for  a  mo- 
ment that  any  one  but  the  Jews  were  those  who  could 
have  been  responsible  for  the  Testament  records  ;  but  if 
they  forged  it  they  must  have  had  some  motive.  Forgers 
always  have  a  motive.  There  is  something  before  their 
minds  that  is  to  be  gained.  But  what  did  these  forgers 
do  ?  "Why  they  compiled  a  record  of  their  own  family  tree, 
that  overwhelmed  their  fathers  with  everlasting  shame  and 
contempt.  They  described  the  ancient  Hebrews  as  besotted 


BISHOP  CHENEYS  REPLY.  97 

idolaters  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  When  God  promised  them 
a  land,  all  their  own,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey — whea 
all  that  was  set  before  them — they  were  willing  to  give  up 
all  hope  of  prosperity,  all  hope  of  deliverance  from  slavery, 
if  they  might  only  have  that  which  they  sighed  for — the 
fish  and  the  leeks  and  garlic  of  Egypt.  They  are  repre- 
sented as  bowing  down  to  the  worship  of  a  calf,  which 
their  own  hands  had  made  out  of  their  golden  ear-rings, 
and  doing  that  in  the  very  presence  of  God,  displayed 
upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  are  described  when  they  reached 
the  borders  of  the  promised  land,  when  all  its  glory  was 
before  them,  and  its  liberty  was  almost  theirs,  as  being 
too  cowardly  to  fight  the  battles  that  were  necessary  to 
gain  the  possession  of  their  inheritance,  till  at  last  God 
refused  to  let  one  of  the  miserable,  cowardly  generation 
enter  the  land  Ho  had  promised  to  their  fathers.  Yet 
all  this  is  forgery,  not  of  the  Assyrians,  not  of  the 
Egyptians,  who  were  their  hereditary  enemies  ;  not  of  the 
Philistines,  but  themselves — the  forgery  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves. As  though  in  the  dead  of  night  a  man  should  steal 
out  under  cover  of  the  darkness  to  the  tombstone  of  his 
•dead  father,  and  with  chisel  and  mallet  in  hand  try  to  erase 
the  honorable  record  of  his  life,  and  forge  a  lying  epitaph 
that  made  him  the  vilest  scoundrel  that  ever  polluted  the 
earth.  Nay,  if  I  commit  a  forgery  on  my  family  record,  if 
ever  I  try  to  impose  a  fabulous  family  tree  on  those  who 
know  me,  I  don't  think  I  shall  ever  trace  my  line  to  Caesar 
Borgia. 

Cutting  the  Qordian  Knot. 

Now  again  I  would  like  to  notice  very  briefly  some  of 
the  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the  Mosaic  writers. 
Now,  there  is  nothing  easier  than  to  start  difficulties 
on  any  subject  which  the  human  mind  can  give  atten- 
tion to.  Let  a  child  in  its  tiny  fingers  grasp  a  pin  and 
7 


98  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

get  at  the  silvered  side  of  a  mirror,  and  in  five  minutes  it 
will  do  more  damage  than  the  most  skillful  laborer  can 
remedy  with  the  work  of  many  hours. 

Is  it  wonderful  that  the  Bible  has  been  made  the  subject 
of  repeated  attacks  ?  I  no  more  hope  to  answer  all  the 
objections  that  can  be  put  against  a  book  such  as  the  book 
in  question,  or  even  the  books  of  Moses — I  say  I  can  no 
more  hope  to  answer  all  these  attacks  than  in  this  spring- 
time I  can  hope  to  pick  off  every  green  leaf  that  starts  out 
upon  every  spreading  tree.  It  were  an  easier  and  more 
effective  way  to  girdle  the  tree  itself.  God  girdles  the  tree 
of  infidelity  by  revival. 

If  the  record  of  experience  tells  any  fact  in  the  world, 
it  is  this,  that  a  thousand  objections  which  the  head  can 
see,  vanish  into  thin  air  when  the  spirit  of  God  gets 
hold  of  a  man's  heart.  Why,  there  are  men  here  to-night 
who  remember  the  hour  when  they  found  difficulties 
upon  every  page  of  the  word  of  God,  when  they  objected 
to  every  principle  it  propounded,  and  now  look  back  to  the 
difficulties  they  used  to  find  there,  and  wonder  how  it  was 
possible  that  they  could  ever  have  been  troubled  by  difficul- 
ties so  palpably  absurd.  They  did  not  study  out  one  by 
one  the  replies  that  might  have  been  made  to  these  objec- 
tions. When,  in  June,  huge  swarms  of  flies  make  our  city 
like  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the  days  of  old,  we  never  under- 
take to  kill  them  one  by  one  ;  half  a  million  of  people 
would  not  be  sufficient  for  that.  But  God's  west  wind 
blows,  and  they  are  scattered.  So  it  is  that  the  winds  of 
God's  spirit  sweep  away  the  swarms  of  difficulties  that  men 
find  in  the  Bible.  And  yet  I  am  prepared  to-night  to  take 
.np  two  or  three  of  the  objections  which  have  been  urged 
against  the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch.  These  objections 
resolve  themselves  into  two  different  parts — the  one  to  the 
facts  of  the  history  of  Moses,  the  other  to  the  morality  of 


BISHOP  CHE  NET  8  REPL7.  99 

the  acts  that  are  there  recorded,  or  the  precepts  that  are 
there  laid  down.  I  won't  have  time  to  go  over  both 
branches  of  the  subject.  The  limits  of  such  a  sermon  as 
this  absolutely  forbid  it.  I  speak  now  of  the  facts.  At 
some  future  time  I  hope  to  take  up  the  moral  portion  of  it. 

Now,  every  time  you  visit  the  South  Park,  you  find  a 
place  of  rest  under  the  grateful  shade  of  an  ancient  willow. 
The  vast  expanse  of  its  gigantic  branches,  the  immense 
girth  of  its  trunk  are  the  witnesses  of  its  venerable  age. 
If  I  should  take  up  to-morrow  the  report  of  the  park  com- 
missioners and  find  there  the  statement  that  they,  at  vast 
expense,  had  transplanted  that  willow  tree  from  the  native 
soil  in  which  it  grew  to  adorn  Chicago's  pleasure-ground, 
I  should  know  beforehand  that  it  was  false;  the  very  appear- 
ance of  the  tree  gives  the  lie  to  the  statement,  and  if  there 
were  any  way  in  which  I  could  examine  the  rings  that 
made  up  the  trunk,  I  need  only  count  them  to  have  a  posi- 
tive proof  of  the  fact  that  the  statement  contained  in  the 
report  was  false. 

Now,  precisely  akin  to  that  is  the  accusation  that  is  often 
brought  against  the  Book  of  Genesis.  It  is  said  that  Moses 
declares  that  six  thousand  years  ago  God  created  this  world 
in  which  we  are  living  now.  But  we  only  need  to  count 
the  geologic  strata — we  only  need  to  number  the  rings  of 
the  huge  trunk  of  this  earth  in  order  to  disprove  the 
statement. 

The  Bishop's  Challenge — Moses  and  Ingersoll  as  Chronologists. 

jSTow,  in  reply  to  this  difficulty,  which  is  so  often  urged 
against  the  Book  of  Genesis,  I  want  to  say  one  word,  and 
that  is,  I  challenge  any  man  in  this  congregation — I  chal- 
lenge any  man  in  the  wide  world  that  has  ever  read  the 
Bible,  to  find  in  any  book  of  the  Bible,  much  less  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  the  statement  that  the  creation  of  this 


100  •          MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

earth  took  place  six  thousand  years  ago.  This  Moses, 
whom  Col.  Ingersoll  thinks  was  such  a  blunderer;  whose 
mistakes  have  been  the  subject  of  his  jeers  and  blasphem- 
ous ridicule,  was  a  more  careful  man  than  our  Peoria  skep- 
tic thinks.  He  certainly  was  careful  not  to  fix  the  time  at 
which  God  created  this  earth.  Whether  that  creation  took 
place  six  thousand  or  six  million  years  ago,  he  does  not 
state.  He  does  say  that  "  In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth."  But  that  is  all.  All  that  he 
asserts  is,  that  matter — the  substance  out  of  which  the 
earth  was  made — is  not  eternal;  it  had  a  beginning;  He 
did  create  it. 

Well,  then,  again,  the  creation  of  man,  equally  with  that 
of  the  world,  is  made  the  object  of  attack.  We  are  told 
that  the  Bible  claims  that  between  five  and  six  thousand 
years  ago  God  placed^  the  first  pair  of  the  human  family  in 
Eden.  But  when  geologists  have  dug  down  into  the  forma- 
tions that  make  up  this  globe — formations  which  upon 
mathematical  calculation  have  taken  ages  and  ages  to  pro- 
duce —  they  find  there  the  remains  of  ancient  tools,  weap- 
ons, ornaments  and  utensils  that  prove  that  man  must  have 
lived  in  a  time  far  ante-distant  to  thsrt  of  Adam. 

For  example,  the  skeleton  of  an  Indian  was  exhumed 
Borne  years  ago,  while  digging  for  the  foundation  of  the 
gas-works  in  the  City  of  New  Orleans,  and  it  was  alleged 
by  one  geologist  of  that  day  that  it  could  not  have  been 
lees  than  fifty  thousand  years  ago  that  that  man  lived.  It 
has  been  flaunted  in  our  faces  that  science  and  religion  are 
opposed  to  each  other ;  that  the  Bible  is  against  progress, 
and  that  we  all  must  concede  that  the  Pentateuch,  is  but  a 
tissue  of  falsehood. 

Now  the  first  answer  I  have  to  give  is,  that  there  is  not 
one  syllable  in  the  Bible  that  fixes  the  length  of  time  01 
man's  existence  upon  this  earth.  Not  one  syllable.  Mosee 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  101 

does  not  tell  us  anything  about  the  date  that  God  created 
Adam  and  put  him  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  True,  we  have 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  a  state- 
ment of  the  number  of  generations  from  Abraham  down 
to  the  Saviour;  but  who  knows  precisely  what  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  "  generations  ?"  The  word  is  used  in  a  variety 
of  senses  in  the  Bible,  and  it  baffles  all  calculation  to  deter- 
mine how  many  ages  intervened  between  Adam  and  Abra- 
ham. The  wisest  scholars  have  been  perplexed  to  fix  the 
number  of  centuries  that  rolled  over  the  world  in  that 
period  of  time.  To  say  that  God  placed  man  upon  this 
earth  six  thousand  years  ago,  is  not  quoting  the  Bible.  I 
want  you  to  remember  that.  I  want  you  to  tell  it  to  the 
skeptic  that  picks  out  genealogical  difficulties  in  the  Scrip- 
ture. It  is  only  repeating  the  result  of  calculations  in 
chronology  of  certain  fallible  men  who,  as  fallible,  were 
liable  to  be  mistaken.  All  infidels  do  it  in  trying  to  fasten 
upon  the  Scripture  the  blunders  of  mistaken  men.  But, 
as  is  well  known,  the  tendency  of  the  best  geologists  in 
our  day  is  rapidly  going  away  from  the  old  ideas  of  the 
vast  periods  of  time  in  the  construction  of  this  earth. 

Mud  Calendars  vs.  Facts — Some  Sad  and   Sorrowful   Scientific 
Figuring  in  the  Sand. 

It  was  not  very  long  ago  that  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  the  distin- 
guished English  geologist,  calculated  from  his  own  stand- 
point the  rate  at  which  the  mud  is  deposited  in  the  great 
delta  of  the  Mississippi.  By  actual  figures  he  reached  the 
astounding  calculation  that  the  formation  of  the  delta  of 
the  Mississippi  must  have  occupied  not  less  than  one 
hundred  thousand  years.  And,  when  down  underneath 
that  deposit  a  skeleton  was  exhumed,  it  proved  beyond  all 
question  that  not  less  than  fifty  thousand  years  ago  human 
feet  had  trod  the  soft  soil  of  the  delta  of  the  Mississippi. 


103  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Bnt  unfortunately  for  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  American  geolo- 
gists were  on  his  track,  and  the  United  States  coast  survey 
followed  in  the  pathway  where  he  had  been  investigating. 
Gen.  Humphrey,  of  the  American  army,  measured  accu- 
rately the  amount  of  the  deposit.  He  reviewed  the  figures 
of  the  English  geologist,  and  he  showed  unanswerably  that 
the  whole  delta  of  the  Mississippi  could  not  have  been  in 
process  of  formation  longer  than  four  thousand  four  hundred 
years.  For  many  years  geologists  held  that  a  quantity  of 
pottery  that  was  found  some  sixty  feet  below  the  surface  of 
the  soil,  in  the  delta  of  the  Nile,  was  at  least  twelve  thousand 
years  old.  But  later  investigations  deeper  down  in  the  same 
soil  came  upon  some  more  patterns,  which  were  undoubtedly 
of  Roman  origin,  and  under  these,  a  brick  that  bore  inefface- 
ably  the  stamp  of  Mehemet  Ali,  a  modern  pasha. 

If  you  have  visited  Minneapolis,  you  certainly  must  have 
been  struck  by  the  formation  of  the  banks  where  the  Mis- 
sissippi has  cut  its  way  through  the  rocks.  Above  there  is 
layer  upon  layer,  stratum  upon  stratum  of  limestone,  and 
beneath  them  the  saccharoid  sandstone,  white  as  the  sugar 
from  which  it  derives  its  name,  and  soft  enough  to  be  cut 
with  a  knife,  lies  in  huge  masses.  On  the  bluff  overlooking 
the  river,  there  lives,  in  an  immense  house,  which  many 
years  ago  was  a  popular  hotel  of  the  ancient  city  of  St. 
Anthoriy's  Falls,  a  friend  of  mine.  One  day  there  came  to 
him  startling  news.  Just  outside  of  his  premises,  in  exca- 
vating for  the  foundation  of  a  new  building,  the  workmen 
had  struck  upon  a  wooden  coffin,  and  in  it  they  found  what 
was  recognized  to  be,  beyond  all  doubt,  human  bones.  A 
local  geologist,  a  physician  of  the  state,  with  some  skeptical 
tendencies,  seized  upon  this  new  foundation  of  the  an- 
tiquity of  man,  and  the  next  day  the  'columns  of  an  even, 
ing  paper  of  St.  Paul  contained  an  article  from  this  gen. 
tleman's  pen  about  what  countless  ages  must  have  elapsed 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  10* 

io  perfect  that  saccharoid  sandstone  over  tlie  coffin,   and 
ever  that  to  have  put  these  layers  upon  layers  of  ruck. 

The  conclusion  was,  that  the  chronology  of  the  Bible 
Was  utterly  a  mist;;ke,  and  that  we  hud,  before  the  days  ot 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  one  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses.  On  reading 
the  article  my  friend  felt  at  >nce  it  was  his  duty  to  investi- 
gate the  event.  He  found  the  coffin  still  unrernoved,  for 
it  was  solidly  wedged  into  the  saccharoid  sandstone,  and 
small  pieces  of  the  bones  were  scattered  carelessly  about. 
My  friend,  whose  Christian  feeling  is  only  equaled  by  his 
profound  ability  and  scholarship,  began  carefully  to  examine 
these  relics  of  pro- Adamite  man.  Imagine  his  surprise  to 
find  that  the  coffin  which  had  been  made  so  many  ages  be- 
fore Adam  was  placed  upon  this  earth,  was  the  plank  sewer 
of  the  old  hotel  in  which  he  lived,  and  the  bones  were  those 
of  some  innocent  lamb,  that  a  careless  cook  had  some  time 
ago  flung  into  that  receptacle.  T  honor  geology,  but  I  claim 
it  is  yet  a  very  imperfect  science,  and  even  with  all  its  im- 
perfections I  have  yet  to  find  a  solitary  principle  or  fact 
that  geology  has  laid  down  that  contradicts  one  word  of 
the  five  books  of  Moses. 

A  Mistake  of  Ingersoll,  Tom  Paine  &  Co.  Corrected — Conclusion, 

I  allude  to  one  more  of  the  Mosaic  facts  that  is  assailed 
by  the  opponents  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  a  difficulty  which 
Mr.  Ingersoll  recently  brought  forward  in  that  remarkable 
production  of  his,  as  something  which  he  had  discovered ; 
but  Bishop  Colenso,  whom  the  Church  of  England  some 
thirty  years  ago  sent  out  among  the  Zulus,  dwelt  upon  it 
long  ago,  and  even  before  his  time,  Tom  Paine  had  made 
it  his  weapon  against  the  truthfulness  of  the  Pentateuch. 
It  is  simply  this:  "We  are  told  that  the  children  of  Israel, 
according  to  the  Bible,  were  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  cap- 
tivity, two  hundred  and  fifteen  years.  There  went  down 


104  MISTAKES  OF  INOBKSOLL. 

with  Jacob  and  his  sons,  their  wives  and  children,  seventy 
souls  in  all.  But  the  Exodus  finds  in  the  army  of  Israel 
six  hundred  thousand  fighting  men,  involving  a  total  of 
men,  women  and  children  which  could  not  have  been  less 
than  two  or  three  millions,  and  it  is  declared  that  such  an 
increase  is  utterly  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  history. 
Our  mathematicians  have  figured  it  all  out  to  their  satis- 
faction. Xow,  I  want  you  to  observe  what  a  tissue  of 
blunders  make  up  this  opposition  to  this  Great  Book.  First 
of  all  turn  back  to  the  life  of  Abraham,  the  ancestor  of + 
Jacob,  and  you  there  discover  that  a  Hebrew  family  did 
not  consist  merely  of  the  parents  and  children.  The  ser- 
vants were  a  part -of  the  Hebrew  household,  and  God  dis- 
tinctly made  His  commands  imperative  and  unavoidable 
upon  Abraham,  that  every  male  youth  born  in  his  house 
should  receive  the  seal  of  circumcision.  He  therefore 
became  a  participator  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Nay, 
more,  if  he  bought  a  servant  he  had  to  be  brought  into  the 
covenant  of  circumcision.  God  insists  upon  this,  and  thus 
every  servant  of  every  Hebrew  household  became  a  He- 
brew, and  was  reckoned  in  the  family  into  which  he  was 
adopted.  Away  back  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  if  you  take 
up  the  Book  of  Genesis  you  will  find  he  had  so  many  of 
these  servants  born  in  his  own  household,  that  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  of  them,  able-bodied  men,  soldiers,  followed 
him  to  battle,  and  when  Jacob,  in  the  one  hundred  and 
thirtieth  year  of  his  age,  went  down  into  the  land  of  Egypt 
the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  of  Abraham's  day  surely 
must  have  multiplied  intp  thousands. 

The  Pentateuch,  it  is  true,  gives  only  the  formal  list  of 
Jacob's  sons,  their  wives  and  their  children.  There  is  no 
formal  mention  of  this  vast  crowd  of  attendants,  who,  not- 
withstanding us  part  of  the  family,  must  have  entered  into 
the  land  of  Egypt  with  them.  Thus,  at  the  very  rate  of 


BISHOP  CJIENET'S  REPLY.  105 

increase  that  the  tables  of  the  census  of  the  United  States 
to-day  display,  these  thousands  might  have  easily  amounted 
to  three  millions  in  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years. 

I  am  not  through  with  this  stronghold  of  the  enemies  of 
the  Pentateuch.  As  I  study  it  seems  to  me  that  I  never 
knew  a  ghost  to  vanish  into  thinner  air.  I  v/ould  like  to 
know  where  or  how  the  critics  learned  that  Israel  was  in 
bondage  in  the  land  of  Egypt  two  hundred  and  fifteen  v^ars. 
Why,  they  learned  in  precisely  the  way  that  they  learned 
that  Moses  said  this  earth  was  made  just  six  thousand  years 
ago.  They  have  taken  up  certain  genealogies  and  specula- 
tions of  commentators.  They  have  taken  up  the  calcula- 
tions of  Hales  and  others,  and  they  have  regarded  them  as 
infallible.  They  have  never  turned  to  the  twelfth  chapter 
of  Exodus,  and  I  find  there  the  statement  given  with  pre- 
cision that  admits  of  no  question  that  the  sojourn  of  the 
children  of  Israel  in  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years:  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  at  the  end  of  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years,  within  the  self-same  day  it  came  to  pass 
that  all  the  hosts  of  the  Lord  came  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."  Long  before  that,  God  had  told  Abraham  that  his 
seed  should  be  strangers  in  a  land  that  was  not  theirs,  and 
that  they  should  afflict  them  four  hundred  years.  And  the 
Jews  so  understood  it,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the  New 
Testament  Stephen  declares  that  God  told  the  father  of  the 
faithful  that  his  seed  should  sojourn  in  a  strange  land,  and 
they  should  bring  them  into  bondage  and  evil  entreat  them 
four  hundred  years.  JSrow,  if  but  seventy  had  gone  down 
with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  an  increase  to  two  or  three  or  even 
four  millions  in  four  and  a  half  centuries  would  have  been 
no  more  than  what  is  paralleled  by  the  history  of  every 
race  on  the  surface  of  the  globe. 

In  Italy,  three  hundred  years  ago,  when  men  were  wild 
over  the  discovery  of  Galileo's  telescope,  there  was  one 
philosopher  who  refused  to  look  through  the  tube  that 
pierced  the  vail  of  the  starry  worlds,  and  when  he  was  asked 
the  reason,  "I  am  afraid,"  he  said,  ''that  I  should  believe 
Galileo's  theory  of  the  planetary  motion."  My  brethren, 
look  into  the  telescope  of  revelation.  To  know  it,  to  study 
it,  is  to  find  the  very  truth  of  God. 


INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE 

ON 

SKULLS, 

AND  HIS 

REPLIES  TO  PROF.  SWING,  DR.  RYDER,  DR.  HERFORD, 
DR.  COLLIER,  AND  OTHER  CRITICS.. 


REPRINTED    FROM  "THE    CHICAGO    TIMES." 


LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Man  advances  just  in  the  proportion  that 
he  mingles  his  thoughts  with  hi«  labor — just  in  the  proportion  that  he 
takes  advantage  of  the  forces  of  nature ;  just  in  proportion  as  he  loses 
superstition  and  gains  confidence  in  himself.  Man  advances  as  he 
ceases  to  fear  the  gods  and  learns  to  love  his  fellow-men.  It  is  all,  in 
my  judgment,  a  question  of  intellectual  development.  Tell  me  the 
religion  of  any  man  and  I  will  tell  you  the  degree  he  marks  on  the 
intellectual  thermometer  of  the  world.  It  is  a  simple  question  of  brain. 
Those  among  us  who  are  the  nearest  barbarism  have  a  barbarian  religion. 
Those  who  are  nearest  civilization  have  the  least  superstition.  It  is,  I 
say,  a  simple  question  of  brain,  and  I  want,  in  the  first  place,  to  lay  the 
foundation  to  prove  that  assertion. 

A  little  while  ago  I  saw  models  of  nearly  everything  that  man  has 
made.  I  saw  models  of  all  the  water  craft,  from  the  rude  dug-out  in 
which  floated  a  naked  savage  —  one  of  our  ancestors  —  a  naked  savage, 
with  teeth  twice  as  long  as  his  forehead  was  high,  with  a  spoonful  of 
brains  in  the  back  of  his  orthodox  head  —  I  saw  models  of  all  the  water 
craft  of  the  world,  from  that  dug-out  up  to  a  man-of-war  that  carries  a 
hundred  guns  and  miles  of  canvas ;  from  that  dug-out  to  the  steamship 

107 


106  MI/STAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  turns  its  brave  prow  from  the  port  of  New  York,  with  a  compass 
like  a  conscience,  crossing  three  thousand  miles  of  billows  without  miss- 
ing a  throb  or  beat  of  its  mighty  iron  heart  from  shore  to  shore.  And  I 
saw  at  the  same  time  the  paintings  of  the  world,  from  the  rude  daub  of 
yellow  mud  to  the  landscapes  that  enrich  palaces  and  adorn  houses  of 
what  were  once  called  the  common  people.  I  saw  also  their  sculpture, 
from  the  rude  god  with  four  legs,  a  half  dozen  arms,  several  noses,  and 
two  or  three  rows  of  ears,  and  one  little,  contemptible,  brainless  head, 
up  to  the  figures  of  to-day, — to  the  marbles  that  genius  has  chid  in  such 
a  personality  that  it  seems  almost  impudent  to  touch  them  without  an 
introduction.  I  saw  their  books — books  written  upon  the  skins  of  wild 
beasts — upon  shoulder-blades  of  sheep — books  written  upon  leaves,  upon 
bark,  up  to  the  splendid  volumes  that  enrich  the  libraries  of  our  day. 
When  I'speak  of  libraries  I  think  of  the  remark  of  Plato :  "A  house  that 
has  a  library  in  it  has  a  soul." 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  the  offensive  weapons  that  man  has  made,  from 
a  club,  such  as  was  grasped  by  that  same  savage  when  he  crawled  from 
his  den  in  the  ground  and  hunted  a  snake  for  his  dinner :  from  thut  club- 
to  the  boomerang,  to  the  sword,  to  the  cross-bow,  to  the  blunderbuss,  to 
the  flint-lock,  to  the  cap-lock,  to  the  needle-gun,  up  to  a  cannon  cast  by 
Krupp,  capable  of  hurling  a  ball  weighing  two  thousand  pounds  through 
eighteen  inches  of  solid  steel.  I  saw,  too,  the  armor  from  the  shell  of  a 
turtle  that  one  of  our  brave  ancestors  lashed  upon  his  breast  when  he 
went  to  fight  for  his  country;  the  skin  of  a  porcupine,  dried  with  the 
quills  on,  which  this  same  savage  pulled  over  his  orthodox  head,  up  to 
the  shirts  of  mail  that  were  worn  in  the  middle  ages,  that  laughed  at  the 
edge  of  the  sword  and  defied  the  point  of  the  spear ;  up  to  a  monitor 
clad  in  complete  steel.  And  I  say  orthodox  not  only  in  the  matter  of 
religion,  but  in  everything.  Whoever  has  quit  growing  he  is  orthodox, 
whether  in  art,  polities,  religion,  philosophy — no  matter  what.  Whoever 
thinks  he  has  found  it  all  out  he  is  orthodox.  Orthodoxy  is  that  which 
rots,  and  heresy  is  that  which  grows  forever.  Orthodoxy  is  the  night 
of  the  past,  full  ofthe  darkness  of  superstition,  and  heresy  is  the  eternal 
coming  day,  the  light  of  which  strikes  the  grand  foreheads  of  the  intel- 
lectual pioneers  of  the  world.  I  saw  their  implements  of  agriculture, 
from  the  plow  made  of  a  crooked  stick,  atttached  to  the  horn  of  an  ox: 
by  some  twisted  straw,  with  which  our  ancestors  scraped  the  earth,  and 
from  that  to  the  agricultural  implements  of  this  generation,  that  make 
it  possible  for  a  man  to  cultivate  the  soil  without  being  an  ignoramus, 
In  the  old  time  there  was  but  one  crop ;  and  when  the  rain  did  not 
come  in  answer  to  the  prayer  of  hypocrites  a  famine  came  and  people 
fell  upon  their  knees.'  At  that  time  they  were  full  of  superstition.  They 
were  frightened  all  the  lime  for  fear  that  some  god  would  be  enraged  at 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  109 

his  poor,  hapless,  feeble  and  starving  children.  But  now,  instead  of 
depending  upon  one  crop  they  have  several,  and  if  there  is  not  rain 
enough  for  one  there  may  be  enough  for  another.  And  if  the  frosts  kill 
all,  we  have  railroads  and  steamships  enough  to  bring  what  we  need 
from  some  other  part  of  the  world.  Since  man  has  found  out  some- 
thing about  agriculture,  the  gods  have  retired  from  the  business  of  pro- 
ducing famines. 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  their  musical  instruments,  from  the  tom-tom 
— that  is,  a  hoop  with  a  couple  of  strings  of  raw-hide  drawn  across  it — 
from  that  tom-tom,  up  to  the  instruments  we  have  to-day,  that  make 
the  common  air  blossom  with  melody,  and  I  said  to  myself  there  is  a 
regular  advancement.  I  saw  at  the  same  time  a  row  of  human  skulls, 
from  the  lowest  skull  that  has  been  found,  the  Neanderthal  skull — 
skulls  from  Central  Africa,  skulls  from  the  bushmen  of  Australia — 
skulls  from  the  farthest  isles  of  the  Pacific  Sea — up  to  the  best  skulls  of 
the  last  generation — and  I  noticed  that  there  was  the  same  difference 
between  those  skulls  that  there  was  between  the  products  of  those  skulls, 
and  I  said  to  myself:  "After  all,  it  is  a  simple  question  of  intellectual 
development."  There  was  the  same  difference  between  those  skulls,  the 
lowest  and  highest  skulls,  that  there  was  between  the  dug-out  and  the 
man-of-war  and  the  steamship,  between  the  club  and  the  Krupp  gun, 
between  the  yellow  daub  and  the  landscape,  between  the  tom-tom  and 
an  opera  by  Verdi.  The  first  and  lowest  skull  in  this  row  was  the  den 
in  which  crawled  the  base  and  meaner  instincts  of  mankind,  and  the 
last  was  a  temple  in  which  dwelt  joy,  liberty  and  love.  And  I  said  to 
myself,  it  is  all  a  question  of  intellectual  development. 

Man  has  advanced  just  as  he  Has  mingled  his  thought  with  his  labor. 
As  he  has  grown  he  has  taken  advantage  of  the  forces  of  nature ;  first  of 
the  moving  wind,  then  of  falling  water,  and  finally  of  steam.  From 
one  step  to  another  he  has  obtained  better  houses,  better  clothes,  and 
better  books,  and  he  has  done  it  by  holding  but  every  incentive  to  the 
ingenious  to  produce  them.  The  world  has  said,  give  us  better  clubs 
and  guns  and  cannons  with  which  to  kill  our  fellow  Christians.  And 
whoever  will  give  us  better  wedpons  and  better  music,  and  better  houses 
to  live  in,  we  will  robe  him  in  wealth,  crown  him  in  honor,  and  render 
his  name  deathless.  Every  incentive  was  held  out  to  every  human  being 
to  improve  these  things,  and  th;it  is  the  reason  we  have  advanced  in  all 
mechanical  arts.  But  that  gentleman  in  the  dug-out  not  only  had  his 
ideas  about  politics,  mechanics,  and  agriculture ;  he  had  his  ideas  also 
about  religion.  His  idea  about  politics  was  "  right  makes  might."  It 
will  be  thousands  of  years,  may  be,  before  mankind  will  believe  in  the 
saying  that  "  right  makes  might."  He  had  his  religion.  That  low 
skull  was  a  devil  factory.  He  believed  in  Hell,  and  the  belief  was  aeon- 


110  MISTAKES  OF  INGER&OLL. 

eolation  to  him.  He  could  see  the  waves  of  God's  wrath  dashing  against 
the  rocks  of  dark  damnation.  He  could  see  tossing  in  the  white-caps 
the  faces  of  women,  and  stretching  above  the  crests  the  dimpled  hands 
of  children;  and  he  regarded  these  things  as  the  justice  and  mercy  of 
God.  And  all  to-day  who  believe  in  this  eternal  punishment  are  the 
barbarians  of  the  nineteenth  century.  That  man  believed  in  a  devil, 
too,  that  had  a  long  tail  terminating  with  a  fiery  dart;  that  had  wings 
like  a  bat — a  devil  that  had  a  cheerful  habit  of  breathing  brimstone, 
that  had  a  cloven  foot,  such  as  some  orthodox  clergymen  seem  to  think 
I  have.  And  there  has  not  been  a  patentable  improvement  made  upon 
that  devil  in  all  the  years  since.  The  moment  you  drive  the  devil  out 
of  theology,  there  is  nothing  left  worth  speaking  of.  The  moment  they 
drop  the  devil,  away  goes  atonement.  The  moment  they  kill  the  devil, 
their  whole  scheme  of  salvation  has  lost  all  of  its  interest  for  mankind. 
You  mast  keep  the  devil  and  you  must  keep  Hell.  You  must  keep  the 
devil,  because  with  no  devil  no  priest  is  necessary.  Now,  all  I  ask  is 
this — the  same  privilege  to  improve  upon  his  religion  as  upon  his  dug- 
out,  and  that  is  what  I  am  going  to  do,  the  best  I  can.  No  matter  what 
church  you  belong  to,  or  what  church  belongs  to  us.  Let  us  be  honor 
bright  and  fair. 

I  want  to  ask  you :  Suppose  the  king,  if  there  was  one,  and  the  priest 
if  there  was  one  at  that  time,  had  told  these  gentlemen  in  the  dug-out: 
"  That  dug-out  is  the  best  boat  that  can  ever  be  built  by  man ;  the  pattern 
of  that  came  from  on  high,  from  the  great  God  of  storm  and  flood,  and 
any  man  who  says  he  can  improve  it  by  putting  a  stick  in  the  middle 
of  it  and  a  rag  on  the  stick,  is  an  infidel,  and  shall  be  burned  at  the 
stake;"  what,  in  your  judgment — honor  bright — would  have  been  the 
effect  upon  the  circumnavigation  of  the  globe  ?  Suppose  the  king,  if 
there  was  one,  and  the  priest,  if  there  was  one — and  I  presume  there 
was  a  priest,  because  it  was  a  very  ignorant  age — suppose  this  king  and 
priest  had  said :  "  The  tom-tom  is  the  most  beautiful  instrument  of 
music  of  which  any  man  can  conceive ;  that  is  the  kind  of  music  they 
have  in  Heaven ;  an  angel  sitting  upon  the  edge  of  a  glorified  cloud, 
golden  in  the  setting  sun,  playing  upon  that  tom-tom,  became  so  enrap- 
tured so  entranced  with  her  own  music,  that  in  a  kind  of  ecstasy  she 
dropped  it — that  is  how  we  obtained  it;  and  any  man  who  says  it  can  be 
improved  by  putting  a  back  and  front  to  it,  and  four  strings,  and  a  bridge, 
and  getting  a  bow  of  hair  with  rosin,  is  a  blaspheming  wretch,  and  shall 
die  the  death," — I  ask  you,  what  effect  would  that  have  had  upon  music  ? 
If  that  course  had  been  pursued,  would  the  human  ears,  in  your  judg- 
ment, ever  have  been  enriched  with  the  divine  symphonies  of  Beethoven  ? 
Suppose  the  king,  if  there  was  one,  and  the  priest,  had  Baid:  "  That 
crooked  sticks  is  the  best  plow  that  can  be  invented ;  the  pattern  of  that 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  Ill 

plow  was  given  to  a  pious  fanner  in  an  exceedingly  holy  dreani,  and 
that  twisted  straw  is  the  ne  plus  ultra,  of  all  twisted  things,  and  any  man 
who  says  he  can  make  an  improvement  upon  that  plow,  is  an  atheist;" 
what,  in  your  judgment,  would  have  been  the  effect  upon  the  science  of 
agriculture  ? 

Now,  all  I  ask  is  the  same  privilege  to  improve  upon  his  religion  as 
upon  his  mechanical  arts.  Why  don't  we  go  back  to  that  period  to  get 
the  telegraph  ?  Because  they  were  barbarians.  And  shall  we  go  to  bar- 
barians to  get  our  religion?  Y\rhat  is  religion?  Religion  simply 
embraces  the  duty  of  man  to  man.  Religion  is  simply  the  science  of 
human  duty  and  the  duty  of  man  to  man — that  is  what  it  is.  It  is  the 
highest  science  of  all.  And  all  other  sciences  are  as  nothing,  except  as 
they  contribute  to  the  happiness  of  man.  The  science  of  religion  is  the 
highest  of  all,  embracing  all  others.  And  shall  we  go  to  the  barbarians 
to  learn  the  science  of  sciences  ?  The  nineteenth  century  knows  more 
about  religion  than  all  the  centuries  dead.  There  is  more  real  charity 
in  the  world  to-day  than  ever  before.  There  is  more  thought  to-day  than 
ever  before.  Woman  is  glorified  to-day  as  she  never  was  before  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  There  are  more  happy  families  now  than  ever 
before — more  children  treated  as  though  they  were  tender  blossoms  than 
as  though  they  were  brutes  than  in  any  other  time  or  nation.  Religion 
is  simply  the  duty  a  man  owes  to  man ;  and  when  you  fall  upon  your 
knees  and  pray  for  something  you  know  not  of,  you  neither  benefit  the 
one  you  pray  for  nor  yourself.  One  ounce  of  restitution  is  worth  a  mil- 
lion of  repentances  anywhere,  and  a  man  will  get  along  faster  by  help- 
ing himself  a  minute  than  by  praying  ten  years  for  somebody  to  help 
him.  Suppose  you  were  coming  along  the  street,  and  found  a  party  of 
men  and  women  on  their  knees  praying  to  a  bank,  and  you  asked  them, 
"  Have  any  of  you  borrowed  any  money  of  this  bank  ?"  "  No,  but  our 
fathers,  they,  to«,  prayed  to  this  bank."  "  Did  they  ever  get  any  ?"  "  No, 
not  fliat  we  ever  heard  of."  I  would  tell  them  to  get  up.  It  is  easier  to 
earn  it,  and  it  is  far  more  manly. 

Our  fathers  in  the  "  good  old  times," — and  the  best  that  I  can  say  of 
the  "  good  old  times  "  is  that  they  are  gone,  and  the  best  I  can  say  of  the 
good  old  people  that  lived  in  them  is  that  they  are  gone,  too — believed 
that  you  made  a  man  think  your  way  by  force.  Well,  you  can't  do  it. 
There  is  a  splendid  something  in  man  that  says:  "I  won't;  I  won't 
be  driven."  But  our  fathers  thought  men  could  be  driven.  They  tried 
it  in  the  "  good  old  times."  I  used  to  read  about  the  manner  in  which 
the  early  Christians  made  converts — how  they  impressed  upon  the  world 
the  idea  that  God  loved  them.  I  have  read  it,  but  it  didn't  burn  into  my 
soul.  I  didn't  think  much  about  it — I  heard  so  much  about  being  fried 
forever  in  Hell  that  it  didn't  seem  so  bad  to  burn  a  few  minutes.  I  love 


112  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

liberty  and  I  halt-  all  persecutions  in  the  name  of  God.  1  never  appre- 
ciated the  infamies  that  have  been  committed  in  the  name  of  religion 
until  I  saw  the  iron  arguments  that  Christians  used.  I  saw,  for  instance, 
the  thumb-screw,  two  little  innocent  looking  pieces  of  iron,  armed  with 
some  little  protuberances  on  the  inner  side  to  keep  it  from  slipping 
down,  and  through  each  end  a  screw,  and  when  some  man  had  made 
some  trifling  remark,  as,  for  instance,  that  he  never  believed  that  God 
made  a  fish  swallow  a  man  to'  keep  him  from  drowning,  or  something 
like  that,  or,  for  instance,  that  he  didn't  believe  in  baptism.  You  know 
that  is  very  wrong.  You  can  see  for  yourselves  the  justice  of  damning 
a  man  if  his  parents  had  happened  to  baptize  him  in  the  wrong  way — 
God  can  not  afford  to  break  a  rule  or  two  to  save  all  the  men  in  the 
•world.  I  happened  to  be  in  the  company  of  some  Baptist  ministers 
once — you  may  wonder  how  I  happened  to  be  in  such  company  as  that — 
and  one  of  them  asked  rue  what  I  thought  about  baptism.  Well,  I  told 
them  I  hadn't  thought  much  about  it — that  I  had  never  sat  up  nights 
on  that  question.  I  said :  "  Baptism — with  soap — is  a  good  institution." 
Now,  when  some  man  had  said  some  trifling  thing  like  that,  they  put 
this  thumb-screw  on  him,  and  in  the  name  of  universal  benevolence  and 
for  the  love  of  God — man  has  never  persecuted  man  for  the  love  of  man ; 
man  has  nevei  persecuted  another  for  the  love  of  charity — it  is  always 
for  the  love  of  something  he  calls  God,  and  every  man's  idea  of  God  is 
his  own  idea.  If  there  is  an  infinite  God,  and  there  may  be— I  don't 
know — there  may  be  a  million  for  all  I  know — I  hope  there  is  more 
than  one— one  .seems  so  lonesome.  They  kept  turning  this  down,  and 
when  this  was  done,  most  men  would  say:  "  I  will  recant."  I  think  I 
would.  There  is  not  much  of  the  martyr  about  me.  I  would  have  told 
them:  "  Now  you  write  it  down,  and  I  will  sign  it.  You  may  have 
one  God  or  a  million,  one  Hell  or  a  million.  You  stop  that — I  am 
tried." 

Do  you  know,  sometimes  I  have  thought  that  all  the  hypocrites  in  the 
world  are  not  worth  one  drop  of  honest  blood.  I  am  sorry  that  any 
good  man  ever  died  for  religion.  I  would  rather  let  them  advance  a 
little  easier.  It  is  too  bad  to  see  a  good  man  sacrificed  for  a  lot  6f  wild 
beasts  and  cattle.  But  there  is  now  and  then  a  man  who  would  not 
awerve  the  breadth  of  a  hair.  There  was  now  and  then  a  sublime  heart 
willing  to  die  for  an  intellectual  conviction,  and  had  it  not  been  for  these 
men  we  would  have  been  wild  beasts  and  savages  to-day.  There  '.vere 
some  men  who  would  uot  take  it  back,  and  had  it  not  been  for  a  few 
such,  brave,  heroic  souls  in  every  age  we  would  have  been  cannibals, 
with  pictures  of  wild  beasts  tattooed  upon  our  breasts,  dancing  around 
gome  dried-snake  fetish.  And  so  they  turned  it  down  to  the  last  thread 
of  agony,  and  threw  the  victim  into  some  dungeon,  where,  in  the  throb- 


.       SKULLS  AND  REPLIES,  113 

bing  silence  and  darkness,  ho  might  suffer  the  agonies  of  the  fabled 
damned.  This  was  done  in  the  name  of  love,  in  the  name  of  mercy,  in 
the  name  of  the  compassionate  Christ,  And  the  men  that  did  it  are  the 
men  that  made  our  Bible  for  us. 

I  saw,  too,  at  the  same  time,  the  collar  of  torture.  Imagine  a  circle  of 
iron,  and  on  the  inside  a  hundred  pointy  almost  as  sharp  as  needles. 
This  argument  was  fastened  about  the  tin-cat  of  the  sufferer.  Then  he 
could  not  walk  nor  sit  down,  nor  stir  without  the  neck  being  punctured 
by  these  points.  In  a  little  while  the  throat  would  begin  to  swell,  and 
suffocation  would  end  the  agonies  of  that  man.  This  man,  it  may  be, 
had  committed  the  crime  of  saying,  with  tears  upon  his  cheeks,  "  I  do 
not  believe  that  God,  the  father  of  us  all,  will  damn  to  eternal  perdition 
any  of  the  children  of  men."  And  that  was  done  to  convince  the  world 
that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  died  for  us.  That  was  in  order 
that  people  might  hear  the  glad  tidings  of  great  joy  to  all  people. 

I  saw  another  instrument,  called  the  scavenger's  daughter.  Imagine 
a  pair  of  shears  with  handles,  not  only  where  they  now  are,  but  at  the 
points  as  well  and  just  above  the  pivot  that  unites  the  blades  a  circle  of 
iron.  In  the  upper  handles  the  hands  would  be  placed ;  in  the  lower, 
the  feet;  and  through  the  iron  ring,  at  the  centre,  the  head  of  the  victim 
would  be  forced,  and  in  that  position  the  man  would  be  thrown  upon 
the  earth,  and  the  strain  upon  the  muscle  would  produce  such  agony 
that  insanity  took  pity.  And  this  was  done  to  keep  people  from  going 
to  Hell — to  convince  that  man  that  he  had  made  a  mistake  in  his  logic — 
and  it  was  done,  too,  by  Protestants — Protestants  that  persecuted  to  the 
extent  of  their  power,  and  that  is  as  much  as  Catholicism  ever  did. 
They  would  persecute  now  if  they  had  the  power.  There  is  not  a  man 
in  this  vast  audience  who  will  say  that  the  church  should  have  temporal 
power.  There  is  not  one  of  you  but  what  believes  in  the  eternal  divor-ce 
of  church  and  state.  Is  it  possible  that  the  only  people  who  are  fit  to 
go  to  heaven  are  the  only  people  not  fit  to  rule  mankind  ? 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  the  rack.  This  was  a  box  like  the  bed  of  a 
wagon,  with  a  windlass  at  each  end,  and  ratchets  to  prevent  slipping. 
Over  each  windlass  went  chains,  and  when  some  man  had,  for  instance, 
denied  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  a  doctrine  it  is  necessary  to  believe  in 
wler  to  get  to  Heaven  —  but,  thank  the  Lord,  you  don't  have  to  under- 
stand it.  This  man  merely  denied  that  three  times  one  was  one,  or 
wiaybc  he  denied  that  there  was  ever  any  Son  in  the  world  exactly  as 
jld  as  his  father,  or  that  there  ever  was  a  boy  eternally  older  than  his 
,«nolhcr — then  they  put  that  man  on  the  rack.  Nobody  had  ever  been 
p<-.."ecuted  for  calling  God  bad — it  has  always  been  for  calling  him  gof" .. 
vVLen  I  atai."*1.  here  to  say  that,  if  there  is  a  Hell,  God  is  a  fiend  .uey 
say  'uat  is  very  b«A  They  say  I  am  trying  to  tear  down  ti>>  jusiittt- 


114  MISTAKES  OF  INOEBSOLL. 

tions  of  public  virtue.  But  let  me  tell  you  one  thing ;  there  is  no  refor- 
mation in  fear  —  you  can  scare  a  man  so  that  he  won't  do  it  sometimes, 
but  I  will  swear  you  can't  scare  him  so  bad  that  he  won't  want  to  do  it. 
Then  they  put  this  man  on  the  rack  and  priests  began  turning  these 
levers,  and  kept  turning  until  the  ankles,  the  hips,  the  shoulders,  the 
elbows,  the  wrists,  and  all  the  joints  of  the  victim  were  dislocated,  and 
he  was  wet  with  agony,  and  standing  by  was  a  physician  to  feel  his 
pulse.  What  for?  To  save  his  life?  Yes.  In  mercy?  No.  But  in 
order  that  they  might  have  the  pleasure  of  racking  him  once  more. 
And  this  was  the  Christian  spirit.  This  was  done  in  the  name  of  civili- 
zation, in  the  name  of  religion,  and  all  these  wretches  who  did  it  died  in 
peace.  There  is  not  an  orthodox  preacher  in  the  city  that  has  not  a 
respect  for  every  one  of  them.  As,  for  instance,  for  John  Calvin,  who 
was  a  murderer  and  nothing  but  a  murderer,  who  would  have  disgraced 
an  ordinary  gallows  by  being  hanged  upon  it.  These  men  when  they 
came  to  die  were  not  frightened.  God  did  not  send  any  devils  into 
their  death-rooms  to  make  mouths  at  them.  He  reserved  them  for 
Voltaire,  who  brought  religious  liberty  to  France.  He  reserved  them 
for  Thomas  Paine,  who  did  more  for  liberty  than  all  the  churches.  But 
all  the  inquisitors  died  with  the  white  hands  of  pence  folded  over  the 
breast  of  piety.  And  when  they  died,  the  room  was  filled  with  the  rustle 
of  the  wings  of  angels,  waiting  to  bear  the  wretches  to  Heaven. 

When  I  read  these  frightful  books  it  seems  to  me  sometimes  as  though 
I  had  suffered  all  these  things  myself.  It  seems  sometimes  as  though  I 
had  stood  upon  the  shore  of  exile,  and  gazed  with  tearful  eyes  toward 
home  and  native  land ;  it  seems  to  me  as  though  I  had  been  staked  out 
upon  the  sands  of  the  sea,  and  drowned  by  the  inexorable,  advancing 
tide;  as  though  my  nails  had  been  torn  from  my  hands,  and  into  the 
bleeding  quick  needles  had  been  thrust ;  as  though  my  feet  had  been 
crushed  in  iron  boots ;  as  though  I  had  been  chained  in  the  cell  of  the 
Inquisition,  and  listened  with  dying  ears  for  the  coming  footsteps  of 
release;  as  though  I  had  stood  upon  the  scaffold  and  saw  the  glittering 
axe  fall  upon  me ;  as  though  I  had  been  upon  the  rack  and  had  seen, 
bending  above  me,  the  white  faces  of  hypocrite  priests ;  as  though  I 
had  been  taken  from  my  fireside,  from  my  wife  and  children,  taken  to 
the  public  square,  chained;  as  though  fagots  had  been  piled  about  me; 
as  though  the  flames  had  climbed  around  my  limbs  and  scorched  my 
eyes  to  blindness,  and  as  though  my  ashes  had  been  scattered  to  the  four 
winds  by  all  the  countless  hands  of  hate.  And,  while  I  so  feel,  I  swear 
that  while  I  live  I  will  do  what  little  I  can  to  augment  the  liberties  of 
man,  woman  and  child.  I  denounce  slavery  and  superstition  every- 
where. I  believe  in  liberty,  and  happiness,  and  love,  and  joy  in  tins 
world.  I  am  amazed  that  any  man  ever  had  the  impudence  to  try  and 


SKULLS  AND  MEPLIES.  115 

.  do  another  man's  thinking.  I  have  just  as  good  a  right  to  talk  about 
theology  as  a  minister.  If  they  all  agreed  I  might  admit  it  was  a 
science,  but  as  they  all  disagree,  and  the  more  they  study  the  wider  they 
get  apart,  I  may  be  permitted  to  suggest  it  is  not  a  science.  When  no 
two  will  tell  you  the  road  to  Heaven — that  is,  giving  you  the  same  route 
— and  if  you  would  inquire  of  them  all,  you  would  just  give  up  trying 
to  go  there,  and  say:  "  I  may  as  well  stay  where  I  am,  and  let  the  Lord 
come  to  me." 

Do  you  know  that  this  world  has  not  been  fit  for  a  lady  and  gentle- 
man to  live  in  for  twenty-five  years,  just  on  account  of  slavery.  It  was 
not  until  the  year  1808  that  Great  Britain  abolished  the  slave  trade,  and 
up  to  that  time  her  judges,  her  priests  occupying  her  pulpits,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  royal  family,  owned  stock  in  the  slave  ships,  and  luxuriated 
upon  the  profits  of  piracy  and  murder.  It  was  not  until  the  same  year 
that  the  United  States  of  America  abolished  the  slave  trade  between  this 
and  other  countries,  but  carefully  preserved  it  as  between  the  states.  It 
was  not  until  the  28th  day  of  August,  1833,  that  Great  Britain  abolished 
human  slavery  in  her  colonies;  and  it  was  not  until  the  1st  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 1803,  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  sustained  by  the  sublime  and  heroic 
North,  rendered  our  flag  pure  as  the  sky  in  which  it  floats.  Abraham 
Lincoln  was,  in  my  judgment,  in  many  respects,  the  grandest  man  ever 
president  of  the  United  States.  Upon  his  monument  these  words  should 
be  written :  "  Here  sleeps  the  only  man  in  the  history  of  the  world,  who, 
having  been  clothed  with  almost  absolute  power,  never  abused  it,  except 
upon  the  side  of  mercy." 

For  two  hundred  years  the  Christians  of  the  United  States  deliberately 
turned  the  cross  of  Christ  into  a  whipping-post.  Christians  bred  hounds 
to  catch  other  Christians.  Let  me  show  you  what  the  Bible  has  done 
for  mankind :  "  Servants,  be  obedient  to  your  masters."  The  only  word 
coming  from  that  sweet  Heaven  was,  "  Servants,  obey  your  masters.'' 
Frederick  Douglas  told  me  that  he  had  lectured  upon  the  subject  of 
freedom  twenty  years  before  he  was  permitted  to  set  his  foot  in  a  church. 
I  tell  you  the  world  has  not  been  fit  to  live  in  for  twenty-five  years. 
Then  all  the  people  used  to  cringe  and  crawl  to  preachers.  Mr.  Buckle, 
in  his  history  of  civilization,  shows  that  men  were  even  struck  dead  for 
speaking  impolitely  to  a  priest.  God  would  not  stand  it.  See  how  they 
used  to  crawl  before  cardinals,  bishops  and  popes.  It  is  not  so  now. 
Before  wealth  they  bowed  to  the  very  earth,  and  in  the  presence  of  titles 
they  became  abject.  All  this  is  slowly,  but  surely  changing.  We  no 
longer  bow  to  men  simply  because  they  are  rich.  Our  fathers  wor- 
shipped the  golden  calf.  The  worst  you  can  say  of  an  American  now 
is,  he  worships  the  gold  of  the  calf.  Even  the  calf  is  beginning  to  see 
this  distinction. 


116  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

The  time  will  come  when  no  matter  how  much  money  a  man  has,  he 
will  not  he  respected  unless  he  is  using  it  for  the  benefit  of  his  fellow, 
men.  It  will  soon  be  here.  It  no  longer  satisfies  the  ambition  of  a  great 
man  to  be  king  or  emperor.  The  last  Napoleon  was  not  satisfied  with 
being  the  emperor  of  the  French.  He  was  not  satisfied  with  having  a 
circlet  of  gold  about  his  head.  lie  wanted  some  evidence  that  he  had 
something  of  value  within  his  head.  So  he  wrote  the  life  of  Julius 
Caesar,  that  he  might  become  a  member  of  the  French  academy.  The 
emperors,  the  kings,  the  popes,  no  longer  tower  above  their  fellows. 
Compare,  for  instance,  King  William  and  Hclmholtz.  The  king  is  one 
of  the  anointed  by  the  Most  High,  as  they  cluiin— oue  upon  whose  head 
has  been  poured  the  divine  petroleum  of  authority.  Compare  this  king 
with  Helmholtz,  who  towers  an  intellectual  Colossus  above  the  crowned 
mediocrity.  Compare  George  Eliot  with  Queen  Victoria.  The  queen 
is  clothed  in  garments  given  her  by  blind  fortune  and  unreasoning 
chance,  while  George  Eliot  wears  robes  of  glory  woven  in  the  loom  of 
her  own  genius.  And  so  it  is  the  world  over.  The  time  is  coming  when 
a  man  will  be  rated  at  his  real  worth,  and  that  by  his  brain  and  heart. 
"We  care  nothing  now  about  an  officer  unless  he  fills  his  place.  No  mat- 
ter if  he  is  president,  if  he  rattles  in  the  place  nobody  cares  anything 
about  him.  I  might  give  you  an  instance  in  point,  but  I  won't  The 
world  is  getting  better  and  grander  and  nobler  every  day. 

Now,  if  men  have  been  slaves,  if  they  have  crawled  in'.the  dust  before 
one  another,  what  shall  I  say  of  women  ?  They  have  been  the  slaves  of 
men.  It  t-iok  thousands  of  ages  to  bring  women  from  abject  slavery  up 
to  the  divine  height  of  marriage.  I  believe  in  marriage.  If  there  is 
any  Heaven  upon  earth  it  is  in  the  family  by  the  fireside,  and  the  famii/ 
is  a  unit  of  government.  Without  the  family  relation  is  tender,  pure 
and  true,  civilization  is  impossible.  Ladies,  the  ornaments  you  wear 
upon  your  persons  to-night  are  but  the  souvenirs  of  your  mother's  bond- 
age. The  chains  around  your  necks,  and  the  bracelets  clasped  upon 
your  white  arms  by  the  thrilled  hand  of  love,  have  been  changed  by  the 
wand  of  civilization  from  iron  to  shining,  glittering  gold.  Nearly  every 
civilization  in  this  world  accounts  for  the  devilment  in  it  by  the  crimes 
of  woman.  They  say  woman  brought  all  the  trouble  into  the  world.  1 
don't  care  if  she  did.  I  would  rather  live  in  a  world  full  of  trouble  with 
the  women  I  love,  than  to  live  in  Heaven  with  nobody  but  men.  I  read 
in  a  book  an  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world.  The  book  I  have 
taken  pains  to  say  was  not  written  by  any  God.  And  why  do  I  say  so  ? 
Because  I  can  write  a  far  better  book  myself.  Because  it  is  full  of  bar- 
barisms. Several  ministers  in  this  city  have  undertaken  to  answer  me 
— notably  those  who  don't  believe  the  Bible  themselves.  I  want  to  ask 
these  mil.  ^nt  nnn$.  *  *>s£i  uiert.  cc  be  lair. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  117 

Every  minister  in  the  ,City  of  Chicago  that  answers  me,  and  those 
who  have  answered  me  had  better  answer  me  again  —  I  want  them  to 
say,  and  without  any  sort  of  evasion  —  without  resorting  to  any  pious 
tricks  —  I  want  them  to  say  whether  they  believe  that  the  Eternal  God 
of  this  universe  ever  upheld  the  crime  of  polygamy.  Say  it  square  and 
fair.  Don't  begin  to  talk  about  that  being  a  peculiar  time,  and  that  God 
was  easy  on  the  prejudices  of  those  old  fellows.  I  want  them  to  answer 
that  question  and  to  answer  it  squarely,  which  they  haven't  done.  Did 
this  God,  which  you  pretend  to  worship,  ever  sanction  the  institution  of 
human  slavery?  Now,  answer  fair?  Don't  slide  around  it.  Don't 
begin  and  answer  what  a  bad  man  I  urn,  nor  what  a  good  man  Moses 
was.  Stick  to  the  text.  Do  you  believe  in  a  God  that  allowed  a  man  to 
be  sold  from  his  children  ?  Do  you  worship  such  an  infinite  monster  ? 
And  if  you  do,  tell  your  congregation  whether  you  are  not  ashamed  to 
admit  it.  Let  every  minister  who  answers  me  again  tell  whether  he 
believes  God  commanded  his  general  to  kill  the  little  dimpled  babe  in 
the  cradle.  Let  him  answer  it.  Don't  say  that  those  were  very  bad 
times.  Tell  whether  He  did  it  or  not,  and  then  your  people  will  know 
whether  to  hate  that  God  or  not.  Be  honest.  Tell  them  whether  that 
God  in  war  captured  young  maidens  and  turned  them  over  to  the  soldiers ; 
and  then  ask  the  wives  and  sweet  girls  of  your  congregation  to  get  down 
on  their  knees  and  worship  the  infinite  fiend  that  did  that  thing. 
Answer!  It  is  your  God  I  am  talking  about,  and  if  that  is  what  God 
did,  please  tell  your  congregation  what,  under  the  same  circumstances, 
the  devil  would  have  done.  Don't  tell  your  people  that  is  a  poem. 
Don't  tell  your  people  that  is  pictorial.  That  won't  do.  Tell  your 
people  whether  it  is  true  or  false.  That  is  what  I  want  you  to  do. 

In  this  book  I  have  read  about  God's  making  the  world  and  one  man. 
That  is  all  he  intended  to  make.  The  making  of  woman  was  a  second 
thought,  though  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  as  a  rule  second  thoughts 
are  best.  This  God  made  a  man  and  put  him  in  a  public  park.  In  a 
little  while  He  noticed  that  the  man  got  lonesome ;  then  He  found  He 
had  made  a  mistake,  and  that  He  would  have  to  make  somebody  to  keep 
him  company.  But  having  used  up  all  the  nothing  He  originally  used 
in  making  the  world  and  one  man,  He  had  to  take  a  part  of  a  man  to 
start  a  woman  with.  So  He  causes  sleep  to  fall  on  this  man — now  under- 
stand me,  I  do  not  say  this  story  is  true.  After  the  sleep  had  fallen  on 
this  man  the  Supreme  Being  took  a  rib,  or,  as  the  French  would  call 
it,  a  cutlett,  out  of  him,  and  from  that  He  made  a  woman ;  and  I  am 
willing  to  swear,  taking  into  account  the  amount  and  quality  of  the  raw 
material  used,  this  was  the  most  magnificent  job  ever  accomplished  in 
this  world.  Well,  after  He  got  the  woman  done  she  was  brought  to  the 
man,  not  to  see  how  she  liked  him,  but  to  see  how  he  liked  her.  He 


118  MISTAKES  OF  1NOERSOLL. 

liked  her  and  they  started  housekeeping,  and  they  were  told  of  certain 
things  they  might  do  and  of  one  thing  they  could  not  do— and  of  coarse 
they  did  it.  I  would  have  done  it  in  fifteen  minutes,  I  know  it  There 
wouldn't  have  been  an  apple  on  that  tree  half  an  hour  from  date,  and 
the  limbs  would  have  been  full  of  clubs.  And  then  they  were  turned 
out  of  the  park  and  extra  pol icemen  were  put  on  to  keep  them  from 
getting  back.  And  then  trouble  commenced  and  we  have  been  at  it  ever 
since.  Nearly  all  of  the  religions  of  this  world  account  for  the  exist 
ence  of  evil  by  such  a  story  as  that. 

Well,  I  read  in  another  book  what  appeared  to  be  an  account  of  the 
same  transaction.  It  was  written  about  four  thousand  years  before  the 
other.  All  commentators  agree  that  the  one  that  was  written  last  was 
the  original,  and  the  one  that  was  written  first  was  copied  from  the  one 
that  was  written  last.  But  I  would  advise  you  all  not  to  allow  your 
creed  to  be  disturbed  by  a  little  matter  of  four  or  five  thousand  years. 
It  is  a  great  deal  better  to  be  mistaken  in  dates  than  to  go  to  the  devil. 
In  this  other  account  the  Supreme  Brahma  made  up  his  mind  to  make 
the  world  and  a  man  and  woman.  He  made  the  world,  and  he  made 
the  man  and  then  the  woman,  and  put  them  on  the  Island  of  Ceylon. 
According  to  the  account  it  was  the  most  beautiful  island  of  which  man 
can  conceive.  Such  birds,  such  songs,  such  flowers,  and  such  verdure! 
And  the  branches  of  the  trees  were  so  arranged  that  when  the  wind 
swept  through  them  every  tree  was  a  thousand  ^Eolian  harps.  Brahma, 
when  he  put  them  there,  said :  "  Let  them  have  a  period  of  courtship, 
for  it  is  my  desire  and  will  that  true  love  should  torever  precede  mar- 
riage." When  I  read  that,  it  was  so  much  more  beautiful  and  lofty  than 
the  other,  that  I  said  to  myself:  "  If  either  one  of  these  stories  ever 
turns  out  to  be  true,  I  hope  it  will  be  this  one." 

Then  they  had  their  courtship,  with  the  nightingale  singing  and  the 
stars  shining  and  the  flowers  blooming,  and  they  fell  in  love.  Imagine 
that  courtship!  No  prospective  fathers  or  mothers-in-law ;  no  prying 
and  gossiping  neighbors ;  nobody  to  say,  "  Young  man,  how  do  you 
expect  to  support  her?"  Nothing  of  that  kind — nothing  but  the  night- 
ingale singing  its  song  of  joy  and  pain,  as  though  the  thorn  already 
touched  its  heart.  They  were  married  by  the  Supreme  Brahma,  and  he 
said  to  them,  "  Remain  here ;  you  must  never  leave  this  island."  Well, 
after  a  little  while  the  man — and  his  name  was  Adarni,  and  the  woman's 
name  was  Heva — said  to  Heva:  "I  believe  I'll  look  about  a  little." 
He  wanted  to  go  West.  He  went  to  the  western  extremity  of  the  island 
where  there  was  a  little  narrow  neck  of  land  connecting  it  with  the 
mainland,  and  tin1  Devil,  who  is  always  playing  pranks  with  us,  pro- 
duced a  mirage,  and  when  he  looked  over  to  the  mainland,  such  hills 
and  vales,  such  dells  and  dales,  such  mountains  crowned  witli  snow, 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  119 

such  cataracts  clad  iu  bows  of  glory  did  he  see  there,  that  lie  went  back 
and  told  Heva:  "The  country  over  there  is  a  thousand  times  better 
than  this;  let  us  migrate."  bhe,  like  every  other  woman  that  ever 
lived,  said :  "  Let  well  enough  alone ;  we  have  all  we  want ;  let  us  stay 
here."  But  he  said:  "  No,  let  us  go;"  so  she  followed  him,  aud  when 
they  came  to  this  narrow  neck  of  land,  he  took  her  on  his  back  like  a 
gentleman,  and  carried  her  over.  But  the  moment  they  got  over  they 
heard  a  crash,  and,  looking  back,  discovered  that  this  narrow  neck  of 
land  had  fallen  into  the  sea.  The  mirage  had  disappeared,  and  there 
was  naught  but  rocks  and  sand,  and  then  the  Supreme  Brahma  cursed 
them  both  to  the  lowest  Hell. 

Then  it  was  that  the  man  spoke — and  I  have  liked  him  ever  since  for 
it — "  Curse  me,  but  curse  not  her ;  it  was  not  her  fault,  it  was  mine." 
That's  the  kind  of  a  man  to  start  a  world  with.  The  Supreme  Brahma 
said :  "  I  will  save  her  but  not  thee."  And  then  spoke  out  of  her  full- 
ness of  love,  out  of  a  heart  in  which  there  was  love  enough  to  make 
all  her  daughters  rich  in  holy  affection,  and  said:  "If  thou  wilt  not 
spare  him,  spare  neither  me;  I  do  not  wish  to  live  -without  him,  I 
love  him."  Then  the  Supreme  Brahma  said — and  I  have  liked  him 
ever  since  I  read  it — "  I  will  spare  you  both,  and  watch  over  you  and 
your  children  forever."  Honor  bright,  is  that  not  the  better  and 
grander  story  ? 

And  in  that  same  book  I  find  this :  "  Man  is  strength,  woman  iu 
beauty;  man  is  courage,  woman  is  love.  When  the  one  man  loves  the 
one  woman,  and  the  one  woman  loves  the  one  man,  the  very  angels 
leave  Heaven,  and  come  and  sit  in  that  house,  and  sing  for  j  oy ."  In  the 
same  book  this :  "  Blessed  is  that  man,  and  beloved  of  all  the  gods,  who 
is  afraid  of  no  man,  and  of  whom  no  man  is  afraid."  Magnificent  char- 
acter !  A  missionary  certainly  ought  to  talk  to  that  nan.  And  I  find 
this:  "  Never  will  I  accept  private,  individual  salvation,  but  rather  will 
I  stay  and  work,  strive  and  suffer,  until  every  soul  frori  every  star  has 
bcL-n  brought  home  to  God."  Compare  that  with  the  Christian  that 
expects  to  go  to  Heaven  while  the  world  is  rolling  ovc?  Niagara  to  an 
eternal  and  unending  Hell.  So  I  say  that  religion  lays  nil  the  crime  and 
troubles  of  this  world  at  the  beautiful  feet  of  woman.  And  then  the 
church  has  the  impudence  to  say  that  it  has  exalted  women.  I  believe 
that  marriage  is  a  perfect  partnership ;  that  woman  has  every  right  that 
man  has — and  one  more — the  right  to  be  protected.  Above  all  men  in 
the  world  I  hate  a  stingy  man — a  man  that  will  make  his  wife  beg  for 
money.  "  What  did  you  do  with  the  dollar  I  gave  you  last  week  ?  " 
"  And  what  are  you  going  to  do  with  this  ?  "  It  is  vile.  No  gentleman 
will  ever  be  satisfied  with  the  love  of  a  beggar  and  a  slave — no  gentle- 
man will  ever  be  satisfied  except  with  the  love  of  an  equal.  What  kind 


120  MISTAKES  OP  INGERSOLL. 

of  children  does  a  man  expect  to  have  with  a  beggar  for  their  mother? 
A  man  can  not  be  so  poor  but  that  he  can  be  generous,  and  if  you 
only  have  one  dollar  in  the  world  and  you  have  got  to  spend  it,  spend 
it  like  a  lord — spend  it  as  though  it  were  a  dry  leaf,  and  you  the  owner 
of  unbounded  forests — spend  it  as  though  you  had  a  wilderness  of  your 
own.  That's  the  way  to  spend  it. 

I  had  rather  be  a  beggar  and  spend. my  last  dollar  like  a  king,  than 
be  a  king  and  spend  my  money  like  a  beggar.  If  it  has  got  to  go  let  it 
go.  And  this  is  my  advice  to  the  poor.  For  you  can  never  be  so  poor 
that  whatever  you  do  you  can't  do  in  a  grand  and  manly  way.  I  hate  a 
cross  man.  What  right  has  a  man  to  assassinate  the  joy  of  life?  When 
you  go  home  you  ought  to  go  like  a  ray  of  light — so  that  it  will,  even 
in  the  night,  burst  out  of  the  doors  and  windows  and  illuminate  the 
darkness.  Some  men  think  their  mighty  brains  have  been  in  a  turmoil ; 
they  have  been  thinking  about  who  will  be  Alderman  from  the  Fifth 
Ward ;  they  have  been  thinking  about  politics,  great  and  mighty  ques- 
tions have  been  engaging  their  minds,  they  have  bought  calico  at  five 
cents  or  six,  and  want  to  sell  it  for  seven.  Think  of  the  intellectual 
strain  that  must  have  been  upon  that  man,  and  when  he  gets  home 
everybody  else  in  the  house  must  look  out  for  his  comfort.  A  woman 
who  has  only  taken  care  of  five  or  six  children,  and  one  or  two  of  them 
sick,  has  been  nursing  them  and  singing  to  them,  and  trying  to  make 
one  yard  of  cloth  do  the  work  of  two,  she,  of  course,  is  fresh  and  fine 
and  ready  to  wait  upon  this  gentleman — the  head  of  the  family — the 
boss! 

I  was  reading  the  other  day  of  an  apparatus  invented  for  the  eject- 
ment of  gentlemen  who  subsist  upon  free  lunches.  It  is  so  arranged 
that  when  the  fellow  gets  both  hands  into  the  victuals,  a  large  hand 
descends  upon  him,  jams  his  hat  over  his  eyes — he  is  seized,  turned 
toward  the  door,  and  just  in  the  nick  of  time  an  immense  boot  comes 
from  the  other  side,  kicks  him  in  italics,  sends  him  out  over  the  side- 
walk and  lands  him  rolling  in  the  gutter.  I  never  hear  of  such  a 
man— a  boss — that  I  don't  feel  as  though  that  machine  ought  to  be 
brought  into  requisition  for  his  benefit. 

Love  is  the  only  thing  that  will  pay  ten  percent  of  interest  on  the  out- 
lay. Love  is  the  only  thing  in  which  the  height  of  extravagance  is  the 
last  degree  of  economy.  It  is  the  only  thing,  I  tell  you.  Joy  is  wealth. 
Love  is  the  legal  tender  of  the  soul — aud  you  need  not  be  rich  to  be 
happy.  We  have  all  been  raised  on  success  in  this  country.  Always 
been  talked  with  about  being  successful,  and  have  never  thought  our- 
selves very  rich  unless  we  were  the  possessors  of  some  magnificent  man- 
sion, and  unless  our  names  have  been  between  the  putrid  lips  of  rumor 
we  could  not  be  happy.  Every  little  boy  is  striving  to  be  this  and  be 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  121 

that.  1  tell  you  the  happy  man  is  the  successful  man.  T~e  man  that 
has  won  the  love  of  one  good  woman  is  a  successful  man.  The  mau 
that  has  been  the  emperor  of  one  good  heart,  and  that  heart  embraced  all 
his,  has  been  a  success.  If  another  has  been  the  emperor  of  the  round 
world  and  has  never  loved  and  been  loved,  his  life  is  a  failure.  It  won't 
do.  Let  us  teach  our  children  the  other  way,  that  the  happy  man  is  the 
successful  man,  and  he  who  is  a  happy  man  is  the  one  who  always  tries 
to  make  some  one  else  happy. 

The  man  who  marries  a  woman  to  make  her  happy ;  that  marries  her 
as  much  for  her  own  sake  as  for  his  own ;  not  the  man  that  thinks  hia 
wife  is  his  property,  who  thinks  that  the  title  to  her  belongs  to  him— 
that  the  woman  is  the  property  of  the  man ;  wretches  who  get  mad  at 
their  wives  and  then  shoot  them  down  in  the  street  because  they  think 
the  woman  is  their  property.  I  tell  you  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  rich 
and  great  and  powerful  to  be  happy. 

A  little  while  ago  I  stood  by  the  grave  of  the  old  Napoleon — a  mag- 
nificent tomb  of  gilt  and  gold,  fit  almost  for  a  dead  deity — and  gazed 
upon  the  sarcophagus  of  black  Egyptian  marble,  where  rest  at  last  the 
ashes  of  the  restless  man.  I  leaned  over  the  balustrade  and  thought 
about  the  career  of  the  greatest  soldier  of  the  modern  world.  I  saw  him 
walking  upon  the  banks  of  the  Seine,  contemplating  suicide— I  saw 
him  at  Toulon — I  saw  him  putting  down  the  mob  in  the  streets  of  Paris 
— I  saw  him  at  the  head  of  the  army  of  Italy— I  saw  him  crossing  the 
bridge  of  Lodi  with  the  tri-color  in  his  hand — I  saw  him  in  Egypt  in 
the  shadows  of  the  pyramids — I  saw  him  conquer  the  Alps  and  mingle 
the  eagles  of  France  with  the  eagles  of  the  crags.  I  saw  him  at  Marengo 
— at  Ulm  and  Asterlitz.  I  saw  him  in  Russia,  where  the  infantry  of  the 
enow  and  the  cavalry  of  the  wild  blast  scattered  his  legions  like  Winter's 
withered  leaves.  I  siw  him  at  Leipsic  in  defeat  and  disaster — driven  by 
a  million  bayonets  back  upon  Paris — clutched  like  a  wild  beast — ban- 
ished to  Elba.  I  saw  him  escape  and"  retake  an  empire  by  the  force  of 
his  genius.  I  saw  him  upon  the  frightful  field  of  Waterloo,  where 
chance  and  fate  combined  to  wreck  the  fortunes  of  their  former  king. 
And  I  saw  him  at  St.  Helena,  with  his  hands  crossed  behind  him,  gazing 
out  upon  the  sad  and  solemn  sea.  I  thought  of  the  orphans  and  widows 
he  had  made — of  the  tears  that  had  been  shed  for  his  glory,  and  of  the 
only  woman  who  ever  loved  him,  pushed  from  his  heart  by  the  cold 
hand  of  ambition.  And  I  said  I  would  rather  have  been  a  French  peas- 
ant and  worn  wooden  shoes.  I  would  rather  have  lived  in  a  hut  with  a 
vine  growing  over  the  door,  and  the  grapes  growing  purple  in  the  kisses 
of  the  Autumn  sun.  I  would  rather  have  been  that  poor  peasant  with 
my  loving  wife  by  my  side,  knitting  as  the  day  died  out  of  the  sky — 
with  my  children  upon  my  knees  aud  their  arms  about  me.  I  would 


122  MISTAKES  OF  1NGEKSOLL. 

rather  have  been  that  man  and  gone  down  to  the  tengueless  silence  ot 
the  dreamless  dust,  than  to  have  been  that  imperial  impersonation  of 
force  and  murder  known  as  Napoleon  the  Great.  It  is  not  necessary  tc 
be  rich  in  order  to  be  happy.  It  is  only  necessary  to  be  in  love.  Thou- 
sands of  men  go  to  college  and  get  a  certificate  that  they  have  an  edu- 
cation, and  that  certificate  is  in  Latin  and  they  stop  studying,  and  in  twc 
years  to  save  their  life  they  couldn't  read  the  certificate  they  got. 

It  is  mostly  so  in  marrying.  They  stop  courting  when  they  get  mar- 
ried.  They  think,  we  have  won  her  and  that  is  enough.  Ah !  the  differ- 
ence before  and  after!  How  well  they  look!  How  bright  their  eyes ! 
How  light  their  steps,  and  hew  full  they  were  of  generosity  and  laughter  f 
I  tell  you  a  man  should  consider  himself  in  good  luck  if  a  woman  loves 
hto  when  he  is  doing  his  level  best !  Good  luck!  Good  luck!  And 
another  thing  that  is  the  cause  of  much  trouble  is  that  people  don't  count 
lairly.  They  do  what  they  call  putting  their  best  foot  forward.  Thai 
meanr  lying  a  little.  I  say  put  your  worst  foot  forward.  If  you  have 
got  any  faults  admit  them.  If  you  drink,  say  so  and  quit  it.  If  you 
chew  and  smoke  and  swear,  say  so.  If  some  of  your  kindred  are  not 
very  good  people,  say  so.  If  you  have  had  two  or  three  that  died  on  the 
gallows,  or  that  ought  to  have  died  there,  say  so.  Tell  all  your  faults, 
and  if  after  she  knows  your  faults  she  says  she  will  have  you,  you  have 
got  the  dead  wood  on  that  woman  forever.  I  claim  that  there  should  be 
perfect  equality  in  the  home,  and  I  can  not  think  of  anything  nearef 
Heaven  than  a  home  where  there  is  true  republicanism" and  true  democ- 
racy at  the  fireside.  All  are  equal. 

And  then,  do  you  know,  I  like  to  think  that  love  is  eternal;  that  if 
you  really  love  the  woman,  for  her  sake,  you  will  love  her  no  matte* 
what  she  may  do;  that  if  she  really  loves  you,  for  your  sake,  the  same; 
that  love  does  not  look  at  alterations,  through  the  wrinkles  of  time, 
through  the  mask  of  years — if  you  really  love  her  you  will  always  see 
the  face  you  loved  and  won.  And  I  like  to  think  of  it.  If  a  man  loves 
a  woman  she  does  not  ever  grow4old  to  him,  and  the  woman  who  really 
loves  a  man  does  not  see  that  he  grows  old.  He  is  not  decrepit  to  her. 
He  is  not  tremulous.  He  is  not  old.  He  is  not  bowed.  She  always 
sees  the  same  gallant  fellow  that  won  her  hand  and  heart.  I  like  to 
think  of  it  in  that  way,  and  as  Shakspeare  says:  "Let  Time  reach  with 
his  sickle  as  far  as  ever  he  can ;  although  he  can  reach  ruddy  cheeks  and 
ripe  lips,  and  flashing  eyes,  he  can  not  quite  reach  love."  I  like  to  think 
of  it.  We  will  go  down  the  hill  of  life  together,  and  enter  the  shadow 
one  with  the  other,  and  as  we  go  down  we  may  hear  the  ripple  of  the 
laughter  of  our  grandchildren,  and  the  birds,  and  spring,  and  youth,  and 
love  will  sing  once  more  upon  the  leafless  branches  of  the  tree  of  age. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  123 

I  love  to  think  of  it  in  that  way — absolute  equals,  happy,  happy,  and 
free,  ah  our  own. 

But  some  people  say :  "Would  you  allow  a  woman  to  vote?"  Yes, 
if  she  wants  to;  that  is  her  business,  not  mine.  If  a  woman  wants  to 
vote,  I  am  too  much  of  a  gentleman  to  say  she  shall  not.  But  they  say 
woman  has  not  sense  enough  to  vote.  It  don't  take  much.  But  it  seems 
to  me  there  are  some  questions^as  for  instance,  the  question  of  peace  and 
war,  that  a  woman  should  be  allowed  to  vote  upon.  A  woman  that  has 
sons  to  be  offered  on  the  altar  of  that  Moloch,  it  seems  to  me  that  such  a 
grand  woman  should  have  as  much  right  to  vote  upon  the  question  of 
peace  and  war  as  some  thrice-besotted  sot  that  reels  to  the  ballot  box  and 
deposits  his  vote  for  war.  But  if  women  have  been  slaves,  what  shall 
we  say  of  the  little  children  born  in  the  sub-cellars;  children  of  poverty, 
children  of  crime,  children  of  wealth,  children  that  are  afraid  when 
they  hear  their  mtrnes  pronounced  by  the  lips  of  the  mother,  children 
that  cower  in  fear  when  they  hear  the  footsteps  of  their  brutal  father, 
the  flotsam  and  jetsam  upon  the  rude  sea  of  life,  my  heart  goes  out  to 
them  one  and  all. 

Children  have  all  the  rights  that  we  have  and  one  more,  and  that  is  to 
be  protected.  Treat  your  children  in  that  way.  Suppose  your  child  tells 
a  lie.  Don't  pretend  that  the  whole  world  is  going  into  bankruptcy. 
Don't  pretend  that  that  is  the  first  lie  ever  told.  Tell  them,  like  an  hon- 
est man,  that  you  have  told  hundreds  of  lies  yourself,  and  tell  the  dear 
little  darling  that  it  is  not  the  best  way ;  that  it  soils  the  soul.  Think  of 
the  man  that  deals  in  stocks  whipping  his  children  for  putting  false 
rumors  afloat!  Think  of  an  orthodox  minister  whipping  his  own  flesh 
and  blood,  for  not  telling  all  it  thinks!  Think  of  that!  Think  of  a 
lawyer  beating  his  child  for  avoiding  the  truth !  when  the  old  man 
makes  about  half  his  living  that  way.  A  lie  is  born  of  weakness  on  one 
side  and  tyranny  on  the  other.  That  is  what  it  is.  Think  of  a  great  big 
man  coming  at  a  little  bit  of  a  child  with  a  club  in  his  hand !  What  is 
the  little  darling  to  do?  Lie,  of  course.  I  think  that  mother  Nature 
put  that  ingenuity  into  the  mind  of  the  child,  when  attacked  by  a  parent, 
to  throw  up  a  little  breastwork  in  the  shape  of  a  lie  to  defend  itself. 
When  a  great  general  wins  a  battle  by  what  they  call  strategy,  we  build 
monuments  to  him.  What  is  strategy  ?  Lies.  Suppose  a  man  as  much 
larger  than  we  are  as  we  are  larger  than  a  child  five  years  of  age,  should 
come  at  us  with  a  liberty  pole  in  his  hand,  and  in  tones  of  thunder  want 
to  know  "  who  broke  that  plate,"  there  isn't  one  of  us,  not  excepting 
myself,  that  wouldn't  swear  that  we  never  had  seen  that  plate  in  our 
lives,  or  that  it  was  cracked  when  we  got  it. 

Another  good  way  to  make  children  tell  the  truth  is  to  tell  it  yourself. 
Keep  your  word  with  your  child  the  same  as  you  would  with  your 


124  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

banker.  If  you  tell  a  child  you  will  do  anything,  either  do  it  or  give 
the  child  the  reason  why.  Truth  is  born  of  confidence.  It  comes  from 
the  lips  of  love  and  liberty.  I  was  over  in  Michigan  the  other  day. 
There  was  a  boy  over  there  at  Grand  Rapids  about  five  or  six  years  old, 
a  nice,  smart  boy,  as  you  will  sec  from  the  remark  he  made — what  you 
might  call  a  nineteenth  century  boy.  His  father  and  mother  had  prom- 
ised to  take  him  out  riding.  They  had  promised  to  take  him  out  riding 
for  about  three  weeks,  and  they  would  slip  oft'  and  go  without  him. 
Well,  after  a  while,  that  got  kind  of  played  out  with  the  little  boy,  and 
the  day  before  I  was  there  they  played  the  trick  on  him  again.  They 
went  out  and  got  the  carriage,  and  went  away,  and  as  they  rode  away 
from  the  front  of  the  house,  he  happened  to  be  standing  there  with  his 
nurse,  and  he  saw  them.  The  whole  thing  flashed  on  him  in  a  moment. 
He  took  in  the  situation,  and  turned  to  his  nurse  and  said,  pointing  to 

his  father  and  mother:  "There  goes  the  two  d 1  liars  in  the  State  of 

Michigan!"  When  you  go  home  fill  the  house  with  joy,  so  that  the 
light  of  it  will  stream  out  the  windows  and  doors,  and  illuminate  even 
the  darkness.  It  is  just  as  easy  that  way  as  any  in  the  world. 

I  want  to  tell  you  to-night  that  you  can  not  get  the  robe  of  hypocrisy 
on  you  so  thick  that  the  sharp  eye  of  childhood  will  not  see  through 
every  veil,  and  if  you  pretend  to  your  children  that  you  are  the  best  man 
that  ever  lived — the  bravest  man  that  ever  lived — they  will  find  you  out 
every  time.  They  will  not  have  the  same  opinion  of  father  when  they 
grow  up  that  they  used  to  have.  They  will  have  to  be  in  mighty  bad 
luck  if  they  ever  do  meaner  things  than  you  have  done.  When  your 
child  confesses  to  you  that  it  has  committed  a  fault,  take  that  child  in 
your  arms,  and  let  it  leel  your  heart  beat  against  its  heart,  and  raise  your 
children  in  the  sunlight  of  love,  and  they  will  be  sunbeams  to  you 
along  the  pathway  of  life.  Abolish  the  club  and  the  whip  from  the 
house,  because,  if  the  civilized  use  a  whip,  the  ignorant  and  the  brutal 
will  use  a  club,  and  they  will  use  it  because  you  use  the  whip. 

Every  little  while  some  door  is  thrown  open  in  some  orphan  asylum, 
and  there  we  see  the  bleeding  back  of  a  child  whipped  beneath  tho  roof 
that  was  raised  by  love.  It  is  infamous,  and  the  man  that  can't  raise  a 
child  without  the  whip  ought  not  to  have  a  child.  If  there  is  one  of 
you  here  that  ever  expect  to  whip  your  child  again,  let  me  ask  you  some- 
thing. Have  your  photograph  taken  at  the  time  and  let  it  show  your 
face  red  with  vulgar  anger,  and  the  face  of  the  little  one  with  eyes 
swimming  in  tears,  and  the  little  chin  dimpled  with  fear,  looking  like  a 
piece  of  water  struck  by  a  sudden  cold  wind.  If  that  little  child  should 
die,  I  cannot  tliink  of  a  sweeter  way  to  spend  an  Autumn  afternoon 
than  to  take  that  photograph  and  go  to  the  cemetery,  when  the  maples 
are  clad  in  tender  gold,  and  when  little  scarlet  runners  are  coming  from 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  125 

the  sad  heart  of  the  earth,  and  sit  down  upon  that  mound,  and  look  upon 
that  photograph,  and  think  of  the  flesh,  now  dust,  that  you  beat.  Just 
think  of  it.  I  could  not  bear  to  die  in  the  arms  of  a  child  that  I  had 
whipped.  I  could  not  bear  to  feel  upon  my  lips,  when  they  were 
withered  beneath  the  touch  of  death,  the  kiss  of  one  that  I  had  struck. 
Some  Christians  act  as  though  they  really  thought  that  when  Christ 
said,  "Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,"  He  had  a  rawhide  under 
His  coat.  They  act  as  though  they  really  thought  that  He  made  that 
remark  simply  to  get  the  children  within  striking  distance. 

I  have  known  Christians  to  turn  their  children  from  their  doors, 
especially  a  daughter,  and  then  get  down  on  their  knees  and  pray  to  God 
to  watch  over  them  and  help  them.  I  will  never  ask  God  to  help  my 
children  unless  I  am  doing  my  level  best  in  that  same  wretched  line. 
I  will  tell  you  what  I  say  to  my  girls :  "  Go  where  you  will ;  do  what 
crime  you  may ;  fall  to  what  depth  of  degradation  you  may ;  in  all  the 
storms  and  winds  and  earthquakes  of  life,  no  matter  what  you  do,  you 
never  can  commit  any  crime  that  will  shut  my  door,  my  arms  or  my 
heart  to  you.  As  long  as  I  live  you  shall  have  one  sincere  friend."  Call 
me  an  antheist;  call  me  an  infidel  because  I  hate  the  God  of  the  Jew — 
which  I  do.  I  intend  so  to  live  that  .when  1  die  my  children  can  come 
to  my  grave  and  truthfully  say:  "  He  who  sleeps  here  never  gave  us  one 
moment  of  pain." 

When  I  was  a  boy  there  was  one  day  in  each  week  too  good  for  a 
child  to  be  happy  in.  In  these  good  old  times  Sunday  commenced  when 
the  sun  went  down  on  Saturday  night,  and  closed  when  the  sun  went 
down  on  Sunday  night.  We  commenced  Saturday  to  get  a  good  ready. 
And  when  the  sun  went  down  Saturday  night  there  was  a  gloom  deeper 
than  midnight  that  fell  upon  the  house.  You  could  not  crack  hickory 
nuts  then.  And  if  you  were  caught  chewing  gum,  it  was  only  another 
evidence  of  the  total  depravity  of  the  human  heart.  W^ll,  after  a  while 
we  got  to  bed  sadly  and  sorrowfully  after  having  heard  Heaven  thanked 
that  we  were  not  all  in  Hell.  And  I  sometimes  used  to  wonder  how  the 
mercy  of  God  lasted  as  long  as  it  did.  because  I  recollected  that  on  sev- 
eral occasions  I  had  not  been  at  school,  when  I  was  supposed  to  be  there. 
Why  I  was  not  burned  to  a  crisp  was  a  mystery  to  me.  The  'next  morn- 
ing we  got  up  and  we  got  ready  for  church — all  solemn,  and  when  we  got 
there  the  minister  was  up  in  the  pulpit,  about  twenty  feet  high,  and  he 
commenced  at  Genesis  about  "  The  fall  of  man,"  and  he  went  on  to  about 
twenty  thirdly;  then  he  struck  the  second  appMcation,  and  when  he 
struck  the  application  I  knew  he  was  about  half  way  through.  And 
then  he  went  on  to  show  the  scheme  how  the  Lord  was  satisfied  by  pun- 
ishing the  wrong  man.  Nobody  but  a  God  would  have  thought  of  that 
ingenious  way.  Well,  when  he  got  through  that,  then  came  the  catechism 


123  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

— the  chief  end  of  man.  Then  my  turn  came,  and  wo  sat  along  on  a  little 
bench  where  our  feet  catne  within  about  fifteen  inches  of  the  floor,  and  the 
dear  old  minister  used  to  ask  us: 

"Boys,  do  you  know  that  ynn  ouajht  to  be  in  Hell  ?" 

And  we  answered  up  as  cueerfuily  as  could  be  expected  under  the  cir- 
cumstances : 

"  Yes,  sir." 

"  Well,  boys,  do  you  know  that  you  would  go  to  Hell  if  you  died  in 
your  sins?" 

And  we  said :   "  Yes,  sir." 

And  then  came  the  great  test : 

"Boys" — I  can't  get  the  tone,  you  know.  And  do  you  know  that  is 
how  the  preachers  get  the  bronchitis.  You  never  heard  of  an  auctioneer 
getting  the  bronchitis,  nor  the  second  mate  on  a  steamboat — never. 
What  gives  it  to  the  minister  is  talking  solemnly  when  they  don't  feel 
that  way,  and  it  has  the  same  influence  upon  the  organs  of  speech  that 
it  would  have  upon  the  cords  of  the  calves  of  your  legs  to  walk  on  your 
tip-toes,  and  so  I  call  bronchitis  "  parsonitis."  And  if  the  ministers 
would  all  tell  exactly  what  they  think  they  would  all  get  well,  but  keep- 
ing back  a  part  of  the  truth  is  what  gives  them  bronchitis. 

Well  the  old  man — the  dear  old  minister — used  to  try  and  show  us 
how  long  we  would  be  in  Hell  if  we  would  only  locate  there.  But  to 
finish  the  other.  The  grand  test  question  was: 

"  Boys,  if  it  was  God's  will  that  you  should  go  to  Hell,  would  you  be 
willing  to  go?" 

And  every  little  liar  said : 

"  Yes,  sir." 

Then,  in  orc?er  to  tell  how  long  we  would  stay  there,  he  used  to  eay : 

"Suppose  once  in  a  billion  ages  a  bird  should  come  fr»m  a  far  distant 
clime  and  carry  off  in  its  bill  one  little  grain  of  sand,  the  time  would 
finally  come  when  the  last  grain  of  sand  would  be  carried  away.  Do 
you  understand  ? 

"  Yes,  sir." 

"  Boys,  by  that  time  it  would  not  be  sun-up  in  Hell." 

Where  did  that  doctrine  of  Hell  come  from  ?  I  will  tell  you ;  from  that 
fellow  in  the  dug-out.  Where  did  he  get  it?  It  was  a  souvenir  from 
the  wild  beasts.  Yes,  I  tell  you  he  got  it  from  the  wild  beasts,  from  the 
glittering  eye  of  the  serpent,  from  the  coiling,  twisting  snakes  with  their 
fangs  mouths ;  and  it  came  from  the  bark,  growl  and  howl  of  wild  beasts ; 
it  was  born  of  a  laugh  of  the  hyena  and  got  it  from  the  depraved  chatter 
of  malicious  apes.  And  I  despise  it  with  every  drop  of  my  blood  and 
defy  it.  If  there  is  any  God  in  this  universe  who  will  damn  his  children 
for  an  expression  of  an  honest  thought  I  wish  to  go  to  Hell.  I  wculd 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  127 

rather  go  there  than  go  to  Heaven  and  keep  the  company  of  a  God  that 
would  thus  damn  his  children.  Oh !  it  is  an  infamous  doctrine  to  teach 
that  to  little  children,  to  put  a  shadow  in  the  heart  of  a  child  to  fill  the  in- 
sane asylums  with  that  miserable,  infamous  lie.  I  see  now  and  then  a 
little  girl — a  dear  little  darling,  with  a  face  like  the  light,  and  eyes  of 
joy,  a  human  blossom,  and  I  think,  "  is  it  possible  that  little  girl  will 
ever  grow  up  to  be  a  Presbyterian  ?''  Is  it  possible,  my  goodness,  that 
that  flower  will  finally  believe  in  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  or  in  the 
eternal  damnation  of  man  ?"  Is  it  possible  that  that  little  fairy  will 
finally  believe  that  she  could  be  happy  in  Heaven  with  her  baby  in  Hell  ? 
Think  of  it !  Think  of  it !  And  that  is  the  Christian  religion ! 

We  cry  out  against  the  Indian  mother  that  throws  her  child  into  the 
Ganges  to  be  devoured  by  the  alligator  or  crocodile,  but  that  is  joy  in 
comparison  with  the  Christian  mother's  hope,  that  she  may  be  in  salva- 
tion while  her  brave  boy  is  in  Hell. 

I  tell  you  I  want  to  kick  the  doctrine  about  Hell — I  want  to  kick  it  out 
every  time  I  go  by  it.  I  want  to  get  Americans  in  this  country  placed 
so  they  will  be  ashamed  to  preach  it.  I  want  to  get  the  congregations  so 
that  they  won't  listen  to  it.  We  can  not  divide  the  world  off  into 
saints  and  sinners  in  that  way.  There  is  a  little  girl,  fair  as  a  flower, 
and  she  grows  up  until  she  is  twelve,  thirteen,  or  fourteen  years  old. 
Are  you  going  to  damn  her  in  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  year, 
when  the  arrow  from  Cupid's  bow  touches  her  heart  and  she  is  glorified 
• — are  you  going  to  damn  her  now  ?  She  marries  and  loves,  and  holds  in 
her  arms  a  beautiful  child.  Are  you  going  to  damn  her  now  ?  When  are 
you  going  to  damn  her'?  Because  she  has  listened  to  some  Methodist 
minister  and  after  all  that  flood  of  light  failed  to  believe?  Are  you 
going  to  damn  her  then  ?  I  tell  you  God  can  not  afford  to  damn  such  a 
woman. 

A  woman  in  the  State  of  Indiana  forty  or  filty  years  ago  who  carded 
the  wool  and  made  rolls  and  spun  them,  and  made  the  cloth  and  cut  out 
the  clothes  for  the  children,  and  nursed  them,  and  sat  up  with  them 
nights  and  gave  them  medicine,  and  held  them  in  her  arms  and  wept 
over  them — cried  for  joy  and  wept  for  fear,  and  finally  raised  ten  or 
eleven  good  men  and  women  with  the  ruddy  glow  of  health  upon  their 
cheeks,  and  she  would  have  died  for  any  one  of  them  any  moment  of 
her  life,  and  finally  she,  bowed  with  age  and  bent  with  care  and  labor, 
dies,  and  at  the  moment  the  magical  touch  of  death  is  upon  her  face, 
she  looks  as  though  she  never  had  had  a  care,  and  her  children  burying  her 
cover  her  face  with  tears.  Do  you  tell  me  God  can  afford  to  damn  that 
kind  of  a  woman?  One  such  act  of  injustice  would  turn  Heaven  itself 
into  Hell.  If  there  is  any  God,  sitting  above  him  in  infinite  serenity  we 
have  the  figure  of  j  ustice.  Even  a  God  must  do  j  ustice ;  even  a  God 


128  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

must  worship  justice;  and  any  form  of  superstition  that  destroys  justice 
is  infamous !  Just  think  of  teaching  that  doctrine  to  little  children !  A 
little  child  would  go  out  into  the  garden,  and  there  wouldtbe  a  little  tree 
laden  with  blossoms,  and  the  little  fellow  would  lean  against  it,  and 
there  would  be  a  bird  on  one  of  the  bows,  singing  and  swinging,  and 
thinking  about  four  little  speckled  eyes  warmed  by  the  breast  of  its 
mate,— singing  and  swinging,  and  the  music  in  happy  waves  rippling 
out  of  the  tiny  throat,  and  the  flowers  blossoming,  the  air  filled  with 
perfume,  and  the  great  white  clouds  floating  in  the  sky,  and  the  little  boy 
would  lean  up  against  the  tree  and  think  about  Hell  and  the  worm  that 
never  dies.  Oh !  the  idea  there  can  be  any  day  too  good  for  a  child  to 
be  happy  in ! 

Well,  after  we  got  over  the  catechism,  then  came  the  sermon  in  the 
afternoon,  and  it  was  exactly  like  the  one  in  the  fore-noon,  except  the 
other  end  to.  Then  we  started  for  home — a  solemn  march — "  not  a  soldier 
discharged  his  farewell  shot" — and  when  we  got  hnrne  if  wu  had  been 
real  good  boys  we  used  to  be  taken  up  to  the  cemetery  to  cheer  us  up, 
and  it  always  did  cheer  me,  those  sunken  graves,  those  leaning  stones, 
those  gloomy  epitaphs  covered  with  the  moss  of  years  always  cheered 
me.  When  I  looked  at  them  I  said :  "Well,  this  kind  of  thing  can't 
last  always."  Then  we  came  back  home,  and  we  had  books  to  read 
which  were  very  eloquent  and  amusing.  We  had  Josephus,  and  the 
"  History  of  the  Waldcnses,"  and  "  Fox's  Book  of  Martyrs,"  Baxter's 
"Saint's  Rest,"  and  "Jenkyu  on  the  Atonement."  I  used  to  read 
Jenkyn  with  a  good  deal  of  pleasure,  and  I  often  thought  that  the  atone- 
ment would  have  to  be  very  broad  in  its  provisions  to  cover  the  case  of 
a  man  that  would  write  such  a  book  for  the  boys.  Then  I  would  look 
to  see  how  the  sun  was  getting  on,  and  sometimes  I  thougt  it  had  stuck 
from  pure  cussednes*s.  Then  I  would  go  back  and  try  Jenkyn's  again. 
Well,  but  it  had  to  go  down,  and  when  the  last  rim  of  light  sank  below 
the  horizon,  off  would  go  our  hats  and  we  would  give  three  cheers  for 
liberty  once  again. 

I  tell  you,  don't  make  slaves  of  your  children  on  Sunday. 

The  idea  that  there  is  any  God  that  hates  to  hear  a  child  laugh !  Let 
your  children  play  games  on  Sunday.  Here  is  a  poor  man  that  hasn't 
money  enough  to  go  to  a  bij  church  and  he  has  too  much  independence 
to  go  to  a  little  church  that  the  big  church  built  for  charity.  He  don't 
want  to  slide  into  Heaven  that  way.  I  tell  you  don't  come  to  church, 
but  go  to  the  woods  and  take  your  Tamily  and  a  lunch  with  you,  and  sit 
down  upon  the  old  log  and  let  the  children  gather  flowers  and  hear  the 
leaves  whispering  poems  like  memories  of  long  ago,  and  when  the  sun  is 
about  going  down,  kissing  the  summits  of  far  hills,  go  home  with  your 
hearts  filled  with  throbs  of  joy.  There  is  more  recreation  and  joy  in  that 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES,  139 

than  goins  to  a  dry  goods  box  with  a  steeple  on  top  of  it  and  hearing  a 
man  tell  you  that  your  chances  are  about  ninety-nine  to  one  for  being 
eternally  damned.  Let  us  make  this  Sunday  a  day  of  splendid  pleasure, 
not  to  excess,  but  to  everything  that  makes  man  purer  and  grander  and 
nobler.  I  would  like  to  see  now  something  like  this:  Instead  of  so 
many  churches,  a  vast  cathedral  that  would  hold  twenty  or  thirty  thou- 
sand of  people,  and  I  would  like  to  see  an  opera  produced  in  it  that  would 
make  the  souls  of  men  have  higher  and  grander  and  nobler  aims.  I 
would  like  to  see  the  walls  covered  wi,th  pictures  and  the  niches  rich 
with  statuary;  I  would  like  to  see  something  put  there  that  you  could 
use  iu  this  world  now,  and  I  do  not  believe  in  sacrificing  the  present  to 
the  future ;  I  do  not  believe  in  drinking  skimmed  milk  here  with  the 
promise  of  butter  beyond  the  clouds.  Space  or  time  can  not  be  holy  any 
more  than  a  vacuum  can  be  pious.  Not  a  bit,  not  a  bit ;  and  no  day  can 
be  so  holy  but  what  the  laugh  of  a  child  will  make  it  holier  still. 

Strike  with  hand  of  fire,  on,  weird  musician,  thy  harp,  strung  with 
Apollo's  golden  hair!  Fill  the  vast  cathedral  aisles  with  symphonies 
sweet  and  dim,  deft  toucher  of  the  organ's  keys;  blow,  bugler,  blow 
until  thy  silver  notes  do  touch  and  kiss  the  moonlit  waves,  and  charm 
the  lovers  wandering  'mid  the  vine-clad  hills.  But  know  your  sweetest 
strains  are  discords  all  compared  with  childhood's  happy  laugh — the 
laugh  that  fills  the  eyes  with  light  and  every  heart  with  j  oy !  O,  rippling 
river  of  laughter,  thou  art  the  blessed  boundary  line  between  the  beasts 
and  men,  and  every  wayward  wave  of  thine  doth  drown  some  fretful 
fiend  of  care.  O  Laughter,  rose  lipped  daughter  of  Joy,"  there  are  dim- 
ples enough  in  thy  cheeks  to  catch  and  hold  and  glorify  all  the  tears  of 
grief. 

Don't  plant  your  children  in  long,  straight  rows,  like  posts.  Let  them 
have  light  and  air  and  let  them  grow  beautiful  as  palms.  When  I  was 
a  little  boy  children  went  to  bed  when  they  were  not  sleepy,  and  always 
got  up  when  they  were.  I  would  like  to  see  that  changed,  but  they  say 
we  are  too  poor,  some  of  us,  to  do  it.  Well,  all  right.  It  is  as  easy  to 
wake  a  child  with  a  kiss  as  with  a  blow;  with  kindness  as  with  a  curse, 
And,  another  thing;  let  the  children  eat  what  they  want  to.  Let  them 
commence  at  whichever  end  of  the  dinner  they  desire.  That  is  my  doc- 
trine. They  know  what  they  want  much  better  than  you  do.  Nature 
is  a  great  deal  smarter  than  you  ever  were. 

All  the  advance  that  has  been  made  in  the  science  of  medicine,  has 
been  made  by  the  recklessness  of  patients.  I  can  recollect  .when  they 
wouldn't  give  a  man  water  in  a  fever — not  a  drop.  Now  and  then  some 
fellow  would  get  so  thirsty  he  would  say:  "  Well,  I'll  die  any  way,  so 
I'll  drink  it,"  and  thereupon  he  would  drink  a  gallon  of  water,  and 
thereupon  he  would  burst  into  a  generous  perspiration,  and  get  well — 


130  MISTAKES  OF  INGEItSOLL. 

and  the  next  morning  when  the  doctor  would  come  to  see  him  they 
would  tell  him  about  the  man  drinking  the  water,  and  he  would  say; 
44 How  much?" 

"Well,  he  swallowed  two  pitchers  full." 

"Is  he  alive?" 

"Yes." 

So  they  would  'go  into  the  room  and  the  doctor  would  feel  his  pulse 
and  ask  him : 

"  Did  you  drink  two  pitchers  of  water  ?" 

"  Yes." 

"  My  God!  what  a  constitution  you  have  got." 

I  tell  you  there  is  something  splendid  in  man  that  will  not  always 
mind.  Why,  if  we  had  done  as  the  kings  told  us  five  hundred  year* 
ago,  we  would  all  have  been  slaves.  If  we  had  done  as  the  priests  told 
us  we  would  all  have  been  idiots.  If  we  had  done  as  the  doctors  told 
us  we  would  all  have  been  dead.  We  have  been  saved  by  disobedience. 
We  have  been  saved  by  that  splendid  thing  called  independence,  and  I 
want  to  see  more  of  it,  day  after  day,  and  I  want  to  see  children  raised 
so  they  will  have  it.  That  is  my  doctrine.  Give  the  children  a  chance. 
Be  perfectly  honor  bright  with  them,  and  they  will  be  your  friends  when 
you  are  old.  Don't  try  to  teach  them  something  they  can  never  learn. 
Don't  insist  upon  their  pursuing  some  calling  they  have  no  sort  of  fac- 
ulty for.  Don't  make  that  poor  girl  play  ten  years  on  a  piano  when  she 
has  no  ear  for  music,  and  when  she  has  practiced  until  she  can  play 
"  Bonaparte  crossing  the  Alps,"  and  you  can't  tell  after  she  has  played 
it  whether  Bonaparte  ever  got  across  or  not.  Men  are  oaks,  women  are 
vines,  children  are  flowers,  and  if  there  is  any  Heaven  in  this  world,  it  is 
in  the  family.  It  is  where  the  wife  loves  the  husband,  and  the  husband 
loves  the  wife,  and  where  the  dimpled  arms  of  children  are  about  the 
necks  of  both.  That  is  Heaven,  if  there  is  any — and  I  do  not  want  any 
better  Heaven  in  another  world  than  that,  and  if  in  another  world  I  can 
not  live  with  the  ones  I  loved  here,  then  I  would  rather  not  be  there. 
I  would  rather  resign. 

Well,  my  friends,  I  have  some  excuses  to  make  for  the  race  to  which 
I  belong.  In  the  first  place,  this  world  is  not  very  well  adapted  to  rais- 
ing good  men  and  good  women.  It  is  three  times  better  adapted  to  the 
cultivation  of  fish  than  of  people.  There  is  one  little  narrow  beltrunning 
zigag  around  the  world,  in  which  men  and  women  of  genius  can  be 
raised,  and  that  is  all.  It  is  with  man  as  it  is  with  vegetation.  In  the 
valley  you  find  the  oak  and  elm  tossing  their  branches  defiantly  to  the 
storm,  and  as  you  advance  up  the  mountain  side  the  hemlock,  the  pine, 
the  birch,  the  spruce,  the  fir,  and  finally  you  come  to  little  dwarfed  trees, 
that  look  like  other  trees  seen  through  a  telescope  reversed— every  limb 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  131 

twisted  as  through  pain — getting  a  scanty  substance  from  the  miserly 
crevices  of  the  rocks.  You  go  on  and  on,  until  at  last  the  highest  crag  is 
freckled  with  a  kind  of  moss,  and  vegetation  ends.  You  might  as  well 
try  to  raise  oaks  and  elms  where  the  mosses  grow,  as  to  raise  great  men 
and  great  women  where  their  surroundings  are  unfavorable.  You  must 
have  the  proper  climate  and  soil. 

There  never  has  been  a  man  or  woman  of  genius  from  the  southern 
hemisphere,  because  the  Lord  didn't  allow  the  right  climate  to  fall  upon 
the  land.  It  falls  upon  the  water.  There  never  was  much  civilization 
except  where  there  lias  been  snow,  and  ordinarily  decent  Winter.  You 
can't  have  civilization  without  it.  Where  man  needs  no  bedclothes  but 
clouds,  revolution  is  the  normal  condition  of  such  a  people.-  It  is  the 
Winter  that  gives  us  the  home ;  it  is  the  Winter  that  gives  us  the  fireside 
and  the  family  relation  and  all  the  beautiful  flowers  of  love  that  adorn 
that  relation.  Civilization,  liberty,  justice,  charity  and  intellectual 
advancement  are  all  flowers  that  bloom  in  the  drifted  snow.  You  can't 
have  them  anywhere  else,  and  that  is  the  reason  we  of  the  north  are 
civilized,  and  that  is  the  reason  that  civilization  has  always  been  with 
Winter.  That  is  the  reason  that  philosophy  has  been  here,  and,  in  spite 
of  all  our  superstitions,  we  have  advanced  beyond  some  of  the  other 
races,  because  we  have  had  this  assistance  of  nature,  that  drove  us  into 
the  family  relation,  that  made  us  prudent;  that  made  us  lay  up" at  one 
time  for  another  season  of  the  year.  So  there  is  one  excuse  I  have  for 
my  race. 

I  have  got  another.  I  think  we  came  from  the  lower  animals.  I  am 
rot  dead  sure  of  it,  but  think  so.  When  I  first  read  about  it  I  didn't 
"  like  it.  My  heart  was  filled  with  sympathy  for  those  people  leave  noth- 
ing to  be  proud  of  except  ancestors.  I  thought  how  terrible  this  will  be 
upon  the  nobility  of  the  old  world.  Think  of  their  being  forced  to  trace 
their  ancestry  back  to  the  Duke  Orang-Outang  or  to  the  Princess  Chim- 
panzee. After  thinking  it  all  over  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  I  liked 
that  doctrine.  .1  became  convinced  in.  spite  of  myself.  I  read  about 
rudimentary  bones  and  muscles.  I  was  told  that  everybody  had  rudi- 
mentary muscles  extending  from  the  ear  into  the  cheek.  I  asked: 
"  What  are  they  ?"  I  was  told:  "  They  are  the  remains  of  muscles ;  that 
they  became  rudimentary  from  the  lack  of  use."  They  went  into  bank- 
ruptcy. They  are  the  muscles  with  which  your  ancestors  used  to  flap 
their  ears.  Well,  at  first,  I  was  greatly  astonished,  and  afterward  I  was 
more  astonished  to  find  they  had  become  rudimentary.  How  can  you 
account  for  John  Calvin  unless  we  came  up  from  the  lower  animals  ? 
How  could  you  account  for  a  man  that  would  use  the  extremes  of  torture 
unless  you  admit  that  there  is  in  man  the  elements  of  a  snake,  of  a  vul- 
ture, a  hyena,  and  a  jackal?  How  can  you  account  for  the  religious 


133  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

i 

•reeds  of  to-day  ?  How  can  you  account  for  that  infamous  doctrine  of 
Hell,  except  with  an  animal  origin?  How  can  you  account  fi>r  your 
conception  of  a  God  that  would  sell  women  and  babes  into  slavery  ? 

Well,  I  thought  that  thing  over  and  I  began  to  like  it  after  a  while, 
and  I  said :  "  It  is  not  so  much  difference  who  my  father  was  as  who  his 
son  is."  And  I  finally  said  I  would  rather  belong  to  a  race  that  com- 
menced with  the  skulless  vertebrates  in  the  dim  Laurentian  seas,  that 
wriggled  without  knowing  why  they  wriggled,  swimming  without  know- 
ing where  they  were  going,  that  come  along  up  by  degrees  through 
millions  of  ages,  through  all  that  crawls,  and  swims,  and  floats,  and  runs, 
and  growls,  and  barks,  and  howls,  until  it  struck  this  fellow  in  the  dug- 
out  And  then  that  fellow  in  the  dug-out  getting  a  little  grander,  and 
each  one  below  calling  every  one  above  him  a  heretic,  calling  every  one 
who  had  made  a  little  advance  an  infidel  or  an  atheist,  and  finally  the 
heads  getting  a  little  higher  and  donning  up  a  little  grander  and  more 
splendidly,  and  finally  produced  Shakspeare,  who  harvested  all  the  field 
of  dramatic  thought  and  from  whose  day  until  now  there  have  been  none 
but  gleaners  of  chaff  and  straw.  Shakspeare  was  an  intellectual  ocean 
whose  waves  touched  all  the  shores  of  human  thought,  within  which 
were  all  the  tides  and  currents  and  pulses  upon  which  lay  all  the  lights 
and  shadows,  and  over  which  brooded  all  the  calms,  and  swept  all  the 
storms  and  tempests  of  which  the  soul  is  capable.  I  would  rather  belong 
to  that  race  that  commenced  with  that  ekulless  vertebrate ;  that  produced 
Shakspeare,  a  race  that  has  before  it  an  infinite  future,  with  the  angel 
of  progress  leaning  from  the  far  horizon,  beckoning  men  forward  and 
upward  forever.  I  would  rather  belong  to  that  race  than  to  have  de- 
scended from  a  perfect  pair  upon  which  the  Lord  has  lost  money  every 
moment  from  that  day  to  this. 

Now,  my  crime  has  been  this:  I  have  insisted  that  the  Bible  is  not 
the  word  of  God.  I  have  insisted  that  we  should  not  whip  oui  children. 
I  have  insisted  that  we  should  treat  our  wives  as  loving  equals.  I  have 
denied  that  God — if  there  is  any  God— ever  upheld  polygamy  and  slav- 
ery. I  have  denied  that  that  God  ever  told  his  generals  to  kill  innocent 
babes  and  tear  and  rip  open  women  with  the  sword  of  war.  I  have 
denied  that,  and  for  that  I  have  been  assailed  by  the  clergy  of  the  United 
States.  They  tell  me  I  have  misquoted ;  and  I  owe  it  to  you,  and  maybe 
I  owe  it  to  myself,  to  read  one  or  two  words  to  you  upon  this  subject 
In  order  to  do  that  I  shall  have  to  put  on  my  glasses;  and  that  brings 
me  back  to  where  I  started — that  man  has  advanced  j  ust  in  proportion 
as  his  thought  has  mingled  with  his  labor.  If  man's  eyes  hadn't  failed 
he  would  never  have  made  any  spectacles,  he  -would  never  have  had  the 
telescope,  and  he  never  would  have  been  able  to  read  the  leaves  of 
Heaven. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  133 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  Reply  to  Dr.  Collyer. 

Now,  they  tell  me — and  there  are  several  gentlemen  who  have  spoken 
on  this  subject — the  Rev.  Mr.  Collyer,  a  gentleman  standing  as  high  as 
anybody,  and  I  have  nothing  to  say  against  him,  because  I  denounce  a 
God  who  upheld  murder,  and  slavery  and  polygamy,  he  says  that  what 
I  said  was  slang.  I  would  like  to  have  it  compared  with  any  sermon 
that  ever  issued  from  the  lips  of  that  gentleman.  And  before  he  gets 
through  he  admits  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  rotten  tree  that  will  soon 
fall  into  the  earth  and  act  as  a  fertilizer  for  his  doctrine. 

Is  it  honest  in  that  man  to  assail  my  motive  ?  Let  him  answer  my 
argument!  Is  it  honest  and  fair  in  him  to  say  I  am  doing  a  certain 
thing  because  it  is  popular?  Has  it  got  to  this,  that,  in  this  Christian 
country,  where  they  have  preached  every  day  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  sermons — has  it  got  to  this  that  infidelity  is  so  popular  in  the  United 
States  ? 

If  it  has,  I  take  courage.  And  I  not  only  see  the  dawn  of  a  brighter 
day,  but  the  day  is  here.  Think  of  it !  A  minister  tells  me  in  this  year 
of  grace,  1879,  that  a  man  is  an  infidel  simply  that  he  may  be  popular. 
I  am  glad  of  it.  Simply  that  he  may  make  money.  Is  it  possible 
that  we  can  make  more  money  tearing  up  churches  than  in  building 
them  up?  Is  it  possible  that  we  can  make  more  money  denouncing  the 
God  of  slavery  than  we  can  praising'the  God  that  took  liberty  from  man  ? 
if  so,  I  am  glad. 

I  call  publicly  upon  Robert  Collyer — a  man  for  whom  I  have  great 
respect — I  call  publicly  upon  Robert  Collyer  to  state  to  the  people  of 
this  city  whether  he  believes  the  Old  Testament  was  inspired.  I  call 
upon  him  to  state  whether  he  believes  that  God  ever  upheld  these 
institutions ;  whether  he  believes  that  God  was  a  polygamist ;  whether 
he  believes  that  God  commanded  Moses  or  Joshua  or  any  one  else  to 
slay  little  children  in  the  cradle.  Do  you  believe  that  Robert  Collyer 
would  obey  such  an  order  ?  Do  you  believe  that  he  would  rush  to  the 
cradle  and  drive  the  knife  of  theological  hatred  to  the  tender  heart  of  a 
dimpled  child  ?  And  yet  when  I  denounce  a  God  that  will  give  such  a 
hellish  order,  he  says  it  is  slang. 

I  want  him.  to  answer;  and  when  he  answers  he  will  say  he  does  not 
believe  the  Bible  is  inspired.  That  is  what  he  will  say,  and  he  holds 
these  old  worthies  in  the  same  contempt  that  I  do.  Suppose  he  should 
act  like  Abraham.  Suppose  he  should  send  some  woman  out  into  the 
wilderness  with  his  child  in  her  arms  to  starve,  would  he  think  that 
mankind  ought  to  hold  his  name  up  forever,  for  reverence  ? 

Robert  Collyer  says  that  we  should  read  and  scan  every  word  of  the 
Old  Testament  with  reverence;  that  we  should  take  this  book  up  with 


134  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

reverential  hands.  I  deny  it.  We  should  read  it  as  we  do  every  other 
book,  and  everything  good  in  it,  keep  it;  and  everything  that  shocks 
the  brain  and  shocks  the  heart,  throw  it  away.  Let  us  be  honest. 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  Reply  to  Prof.  Swing. 

Prof.  Swing  has  made  a  few  remarks  on  this  subject,  and  I  say  the 
spirit  he  has  exhibited  has  been  as  gentle  and  as  sweet  as  the  perfume. of  a 
flower.  He  was  too  good  a  man  to  stay  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
He  was  a  rose  among  thistles.  He  was  a  dove  among  vultures — and  they 
hunted  him  out,  and  I  am  glad  he  came  out.  I  tell  all  the  churches  to 
drive  all  such  men  out,  and  when  he  comes  I  want  him  to  state  just 
what  he  thinks.  I  want  him  to  tell  the  people  of  Chicago  whether  he 
believes  the  Bible  is  inspired  in  any  sense  except  that  in  which  Shaks- 
peare  was  inspired.  Honor  bright  I  tell  you  that  all  the  sweet  and 
beautiful  things  in  the  Bible  would  not  make  one  play  of  Shakspeare,  all 
the  philosophy  in  the  world  would  not  make  one  scene  in  Hamlet,  all 
the  beauties  of  the  Bible  would  not  make  one  scene  in  the  Midsummer 
Night's  Dream;  all  the  beautiful  things  about  woman  in  the  Bible 
would  not  begin  to  create  such  a  character  as  Perdita  or  Imogene  or 
Miranda.  Not  one. 

I  want  him  to  tell  whether  he  believes  the  Bible  was  inspired  in  any 
other  way  than  Shakspeare  was  inspired.  I  want  him  to  pick  out 
something  as  beautiful  and  tender  as  Burns'  poem  to  Mary  in  Heaven. 
I  want  him  to  tell  whether  he  believes  the  story  about  the  bears  eating 
up  children;  whether  that  is  inspired.  I  want  him  to  tell  whether  he 
considers  that  a  poem  or  not.  I  want  to  know  if  the  same  God  made 
those  bears  that  devoured  the  children  because  they  laughed  at  an  old 
man  out  of  hair.  I  want  to  know  if  the  same  God  that  did  that  is  the 
same  God  who  said,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  I  want  him  to  answer  it,  and  answer  it 
fairly.  That  is  all  I  ask.  I  want  just  the  fair  thing. 

Now,  sometimes  Mr.  Swing  talks  as  though  he  believed  the  Bible, 
and  then  he  talks  to  me  as  though  he  didn't  believe  the  Bible.  The  day 
he  made  this  sermon  I  think  he  did,  just  a  little,  believe  it.  He  is  like 
the  man  that  passed  a  ten  dollar  counterfeit  bill.  He  was  arrested,  and 
his  father  went  to  see  him  and  said,  "John,  how  could  you  commit  such 
a  crime?  How  co'uld  you  bring  iny  gray  hairs  in  sorrow  to  the  grave  ?" 
"  Well,"  he  says,  "  father,  I'll  tell  you.  I  got  this  bill  and  some  days  I 
thought  it  was  bad  and  some  days  I  thought  it  was  good,  and  one  day 
when  I  thought  it  was  good  I  passed  it." 

I  want  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  have  the  greatest  respect  for 
Prof.  Swing,  but  I  want  him  to  tell  whether  the  109th  psalm  is  inspired. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  135 

I  want  mm  to  tell  whether  the  passages  I  shall  afterward  read  in  this 
book  are  inspired.      That  is  what  I  want. 

Ingersoll's  Reply  to  Brooke  Herford,  D.D. 

Then  there  is  another  gentleman  here.  His  name  is  Herford.  He- 
says  it  is  not  fair  to  apply  the  test  of  truth  to  the  Bible — I  don't  think 
it  is  myself.  He  says  although  Moses  upheld  slavery,  that  he  improved 
it.  They  were  not  quite  as  bad  as  they  were  before,  and  Heaven  justified 
slavery  at  that  time.  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  turned  the  arms  of 
children  into  chains  of  slavery  ?  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  said  to  a 
man:  "You  can't  have  your  wife  ualess  you  will  be  a  slave!  You 
cannot  have  your  children  unless  you  will  lose  your  liberty;  and  uu- 
less  you  are  willing  to  throw  them  from  your  heart  forever,  you 
cannot  be  free?"  I  want  Mr.  Herford  to  state  whether  he  loves 
such  a  God.  Be  honor  bright  about  it.  Don't  begin  to  talk  about 
civilization,  or  what  the  church  has  done  or  will  do.  Just  walk  right 
up  to  the  rack  and  say  whether  you  love  and  worship  a  God  that  estab- 
lished slavery.  Honest!  And  love  and  worship  a  God  that  would 
allow  a  little  babe  to  be  torn  from  the  breast  of  its  mother  and  sold  into 
slavery.  Now  tell  it  fair,  Mr.  Herford,  I  want  you  to  tell  the  ladies  in 
your  congregation  that  you  believe  in  a  God  that  allowed  women  to  be 
given  to  the  soldiers.  Tell  them  that,  and  then  if  you  say  it  was  not  the 
God  of  Moses,  then  don't  praise  Moses  any  more.  Don't  do  it.  Answer 
these  questions. 

The  Ingersoll  Gattling  Gun  Turned  on  Dr.  Ryder. 

Then  here  is  another  gentleman,  Mr.  Ryder,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ryder,  and 
he  says  that  Calvinism  is  rejected  by  a  majority  of  Christendom.  He  is 
mistaken.  There  is  what  they  call  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  They  met 
in  this  country  in  1875  or  1876,  and  there  were  present  representatives  of 
all  the  evangelical  churches  in  the  world,  and  they  adopted  a  creed,  and 
that  creed  is  that  man  is  totally  depraved.  That  creed  is  that  there  is  an 
eternal,  universal  Hell,  and  that  every  man  that  does  not  believe  in  a  cer- 
tain way  is  bound  to  be  damned  forever,  and  that  there  is  only  one  way 
to  be  saved,  and  that  is  by  faith,  and  by  faith  alone ;  and  they  would  not 
allow  anybody  to  be  represented  there  that  did  not  believe  that,  and  they 
would  not  allow  a  Unitarian  there,  and  would  not  have  allowed  Dr. 
Ryder  there,  because  he  takes  away  from  the  Christian  world  the  conso- 
lation naturally  arising  from  the  belief  in  Hell. 

Dr.  Ryder  is  mistaken.  All  the  orthodox  religion  of  the  day  is  Cal- 
vinism. It  believes  in  the  fall  of  man.  It  believes  in  the  atonement. 
It  believes  in  the  eternity  of  Hell,  and  it  believes  in  salvation  by  faith; 
tuat  is  to  say,  by  credulity. 


136  MISTAKES  OF  1NOERSOLL. 

That  is  what  they  believe,  and  he  is  mistaken ;  and  I  want  to  tell  Dr. 
Ryder  to-day,  if  there  is  n  God,  and  He  wrote  the  Old  Testament,  there 
is  a  Hell.  The  God  th;it  wrote  the  Old  Testament  will  have  a  Hell. 
And  I  want  to  tell  Dr.  Ryder  another  thing,  that  the  Bible  teaches  au 
•eternity  of  punishment.  want  to  tell  him  that  the  Bible  upholds  the 
•doctrine  of  Hell.  I  want  to  tell  him  that  if  there  is  no  Hell,  somebody 
•ought  to  have  said  so,  and  Jesus  Christ  himself  should  not  have  said: 
"  I  will  at  the  last  day  say :  '  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.'"  If  there  was  not  such  a 
place,  Christ  would  not  have  said :  "  Depart  from  mo,  ye  cursed,  and 
these  shall  go  hence  into  everlasting  fire."  And  if  you,  Dr.  Ryder,  are 
depending  for  salvation  on  the  God  that  wrote  the  Old  Testament,  you 
will  inevitably  be  eternally  damned. 

There  is  no  hope  for  you.  It  is  just  as  bad  to  deny  Hell  as  it  is  to 
deny  Heaven.  It  is  just  as  much  blasphemy  to  deny  the  devil  as  to 
deny  God,  according  to  the  orthodox  creed.  He  admits  that  the  Jews 
were  polygamists,  but,  he  says,  how  was  it  they  finally  quit  it?  lean 
tell  you — the  soil  was  so  poor  they  couldn't  afford  it.  Prof.  Swing  says 
the  Bible  is  a  poem.  Dr.  Ryder  says  it  is  a  picture.  The  Garden  of 
Eden  is  pictorial ;  a  pictorial  snake  and  a  pictorial  woman,  I  suppose, 
and  a  pictorial  man,  and  inaybe  it  was  a  pictorial  sin.  And  only  a 
pictorial  atonement. 

Ingeraoll's  Reply  to  Rabbi  Bien. 

Then  there  is  another  gentleman,  and  he  a  rabbi,  a  Rabbi  Bien,  or 
Bean,  or  whatever  his  name  is,  and  he  comes  to  the  defense  of  the  Great 
Law-giver.  There  was  another  rabbi  who  attacked  me  in  Cincinnati, 
and  I  couldn't  help  but  think  of  the  old  saying,  that  a  man  got  off  when 
he  said  the  tallest  man  he  ever  knew,  his  name  was  Short.  And  the 
fattest  man  he  ever  saw,  his  name  was  Lean.  And  it  is  only  necessary 
for  me  to  add  that  this  rabbi  in  Cincinnati  was  Wise. 

The  rabbi  here,  I  will  not  answer  him,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  Be- 
cause he  has  taken  himself  outside  of  all  the  limits  of  a  gentleman; 
because  he  has  taken  it  upon  himself  to  traduce  American  women  in 
language  the  beastliest  I  ever  read;  and  any  man  who  says  that  the 
American  women  are  not  just  as  good  women  as  any  God  can  make, 
and  pick  his  mud  to-day,  is  an  unappreciative  barbarian. 

I  will  let  him  alone  because  he  denounced  all  the  men  in  this  country, 
all  the  members  of  Congress,  all  the  members  of  the  Senate,  and  all  the 
j udges  upon  the  Bench;  in  his  lecture  he  denounced  them  as  thieves 
and  robbers.  That  won't  do.  I  want  to  remind  him  that  in  this  country 
the  Jews  were  first  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  citizens;  that  in  this 
country  they  were  first  given  all  their  rights,  and  I  am  as  much  in  lavor 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  137 

«f  their  having  their  rights  as  I  am  in  favor  ot  having  my  own.  But 
•when  a  rabbi  so  far  forgets  himself  as  to  traduce  the  women  aud  men  of 
this  country,  I  pronounce  him  a  vulgar  falsifier,  and  let  him  alone. 

Strange,  that  nearly  every  man  that  has  answered  me,  has  answered 
me  mostly  on  the  same  side.  Strange,  that  nearly  every  man  that  thought 
himself  called  upon  to  defend  the  Bible  was  one  who  did  not  believe  in 
it  himself.  Isn't  it  strange?  They  are  like  some  suspected  people, 
always  anxious  to  show  their  marriage  certificate.  They  want  at  least 
to  convince  the  world  that  they  are  not  as  bad  as  I  am. 

Now,  I  want  to  read  you  just  one  or  two  things,  and  then  I  ani  going 
to  let  you  go.  I  want  to  see  if  I  have  said  such  awful  things,  and 
whether  I  have  got  any  scripture  to  stand  by  me.  I  will  only  read  two 
or  three  verses.  Does  the  Bible  teach  man  to  enslave  his  brother?  If 
it  does,  it  is  not  the  word  of  God,  unless  God  is  a  slaveholder. 

Moreover,  all  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them 
shall  ye  buy  of  their  families  which  are  with  you,  which  they  beget  in  your  land,  and 
they  shall  be  your  possession.  Ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children 
after  you  to  inherit  them.  They  shall  be  your  bondsmen  forever.  (Old  Testament.) 

Upon  the  limbs  of  unborn  babes  this  fiendish  God  put  the  chains  of 
slavery.  I  hate  him. 

Both  thy  bondmen  and  bondwomen  shall  be  of  the  heathen  round  about  thee,  and 
them  shall  ye  buy,  bondmen  and  bondwomen. 

Now  let  us  read  what  the  New  Testament  has.  I  could  read  a  great 
deal  more,  but  that  is  enough. 

Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  masters,  according  to  the  flesh  in  fear 
and  trembling,  in  singleness  of  your  heart,  as  unto  Christ. 

This  is  putting  the  dirty  thief  that  steals  your  labor  on  an  equality 
with  God. 

Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear;  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle 
but  also  to  the  froward. 

For  this  is  thankworthy,  if  a  man  for  conscience  toward  God  endure  grief,  sufferiu*» 
wrongfully. 

The  idea  of  a  man  on  account  of  conscience  toward  God  stealing 
another  man,  or  allowing  him  nothing  but  lashes  on  his  back  as  legal- 
tender  for  labor  performed. 

Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  a.V 
honor,  that  the  name  of  God  and  His  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed. 

How  can  you  blaspheme  the  name  of  God  by  asserting  your  independ- 
ence? How  can  you  blaspheme  the  name  of  a  God  by  striking  fetters 
from  the  limbs  of  men?  I  wish  some  of  your  answers  would  tell  you 
that  t%  And  they  that  have  believing  masters  let  them  not  despise  them." 
That  is  to  say,  a  good  Christian  could  own  another  believer  in  Jesus 
Christ;  could  own  a  woman  and  her  children,  and  could  sell  the  child 
away  from  its  mother.  That  is  a  sweet  belief.  0,  hypocrisy! 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Let  them  not  despise  them  because  they  are  brethren,  but  rather  do  them  Benrice 
because  they  are  faithful  and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit. 

Oh,  what  slush !  Here  is  what  they  tell  the  poor  slave,  so  that  he 
\vill  serve  the  man  that  stole  his  wife  and  children  from  him : 

For  we  brought  nothing  into  this  world,  and  it  is  certain  we  can  carry  nothing  out. 
navinjj  food  and  raiment  let  us  be  therewith  content. 

Don't  you  think  that  it  would  do  just  as  well  to  preach  that  to  the 
thieving  man  as  to  the  suffering  slave?  I  think  so.  Then  this  same 
.Bible  teaches  witchcraft,  that  spirits  go  into  the  bodies  of  the  man,  and 
pigs;  and  that  God  himself  made  a  trade  with  the  devil,  and  the  devil 
traded  him  off— a  man  for  a  certain  number  of  swine,  and  the  devil  lost 
money  because  the  hogs  ran  right  down  into  the  sea.  He  got  a  corner 
on  that  deal. 

Now  let  us  see  how  they  believed  in  the  rights  of  children : 

If  a  man  have  a  stubborn  and  a  rebellious  son  which  will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his 
father,  or  the  voice  of  his  mother,  and  that,  when  they  have  chastened  him,  will  not 
barken  unto  them,  then  shall  his  father  and  his  mother  lay  hold  on  him,  and  bring 
him  out  unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  and  unto  the  gate  of  his  place.  And  they  shall  say 
nnto  the  elders  of  his  city,  This,  our  son,  is  stubborn  and  rebellious,  he  will  not  obey 
our  voice,  he  is  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard.  And  all  the  men  of  his  city  shall  stone  him 
with  stones,  that  he  die,  so  shalt  thou  put  evil  away. 

That  is  a  very  good  way  to  raise  children.  Here  is  the  story  of  Jeph- 
thah.  He  went  oft  and  he  asked  the  Lord  to  let  him  whip  some  people, 
and  he  told  the  Lord  if  He  would  let  him  whip  them,  he  would  sacrifice 
to  the  Lord  the  first  thing  that  met  him  on  his  return  ;  and  the  first  thing 
that  met  him  was  his  own  beautiful  daughter,  and  he  sacrified  her.  Is 
there  a  sadder  story  in  all  the  history  of  the  world  than  that?  What 
do  you  think  of  a  man  that  would  sacrifice  his  own  daughter  ?  What  do 
you  think  of  a  God  that  would  receive  that  sacrifice  ?  Now,  then,  they 
come  to  women  in  this  blessed  gospel,  and  let  us  see  what  the  gospel 
says  about  women.  Then  you  ought  all  to  go  to  church,  girls,  next 
Sunday  and  hear  it.  "  Let  the  woman  learn  in  silence  with  all  subjec- 
tion ;  suffer  not  woman  to  think  nor  usurp  authority  over  man,  for  Adam 
was  formed  first,  not  Eve." 

Don't  you  see  ? 

"Adam  was  not  deceived,  but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  in  the 
transgession.  Notwithstanding  all  this  she  shall  be  saved  in  child- 
bearing  if  she  continues  in  faith  and  charity  and  holiness  with  sobriety." 
(That  is  Mr.  Timothy.)  "  But  I  would  have  you  know  that  the  head  of 
every  man  is  Christ,  and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man,  and  the  head 
of  Christ  is  God." 

I  suppose  that  every  old  maid  is  acephalous. 

41  For  a  man  indeed  ought  not  to  cover  head,  forasmuch  as  he  is  '.he 
image  and  glory  of  God ;  but  the  woman  is  the  glory  of  man.  For  the 
man  is  not  of  the  woman,  but  woman  of  the  man.  Neither  was  the  man 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  139 

created  for  the  woman,  but  the  woman  for  the  man.  Wives,  submit 
yourselves  unto  your  own  husband  as  unto  the  Lord,  for  the  husband  is 
the  head  of  the  wife  even  as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church." 

Do  you  hear  that!  You  didn't  know  how  much  we  were  above  you. 
When  you  go  back  to  the  Old  Testament,  to  the  great  law-giver,  you  find 
that  the  woman  has  to  ask  forgiveness  for  having  borne  a  child.  If  it  was 
a  boy,  thirty-three  days  she  was  unclean ;  if  it  was  a  girl  sixty-six.  Nice 
laws!  Good  laws!  If  there  is  a  pure  thing  in  this  world,  if  there  is  a 
picture  of  perfect  purity,  it  is  a  mother  with  her  child  in  her  arms. 
Yes,  I  think  more  of  a  good  woman  and  a  child  than  I  do  of  all  the  gods 
I  have  ever  heard  these  people  tell  about.  Just  think  of  this: 

When  thou  goest  forth  to  war  against  thine  enemies,  and  the  Lord  thy  God  hath 
delivered  them  into  thine  hands,  and  thou  hast  taken  them  captive,  and  seest  among 
the  captive  a  beautiful  woman  and  hast  a  desire  unto  her  that  thou  wouldst  have  her 
to  thy  wife,  then  thou  shall  bring  her  home  to  thine  house,  r.nd  she  shall  shave  her 
head,  and  pare  her  nails. 

Wherefore,  ye  must  needs  be  subject  not  only  for  love,  but  for  conscience  sake,  and 
for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute,  for  they  are  God's  ministers. 

I  despise  this  wretched  doctrine.  Wherever  the  sword  of  rebellion  is 
drawn  in  favor  of  the  right,  I  am  a  rebel.  I  suppose  Alexander,  czar 
of  Russia,  was  put  there  by  the  order  of  God,  was  he  ?  I  am  sorry  he 
was  not  removed  by  the  nihilist  that  shot  at  him  the  other  day. 

I  tell  you  in  a  country  like  that,  where  there  are  hundreds  of  girls  not  16 
vears  of  age  prisoners  in.  Siberia,  simply  for  giving  their  ideas  about 
:  try,  ua^  we  fcUogr^^bof1  *,r  '.hat  country  congratulating  that  wretch 
that  he  was  not  killed,  my  heart  goes  into  the  prison,  my  heart  goes  with. 
the  poor  girl  working  as  a  miner  in  the  mines,  crawling  en  her  hands 
and  knees  getting  the  precious  ore  out  of  the  mines,  and  my  sympathies 
go  with  her  lad  my  symphathies  cluster  around  the  point  of  the  dagger. 

^>oea  une  Bible  describe  a  God  of  mercy  ?  Let  me  read  you  a  verse  or 
two. 

I  will  make  my  arrows  drunk  with  blood,  an<i  my  sword  shall  devour  nesh.  Thy 
foot  may  be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  thine  enemies. 

And  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the  same. 

And  the  L,ord  thy  God  will  put  out  those  nations  before  thee  bv  little  and  little ; 
thou  ma'  cetnot  consume  them  at  once,  lest  the  beasts  of  the  field  increase  upon  thee. 

3ut+ae  Lord  thy  God  shall  deliver  them  unto  thee,  and  shall  destroy  them  with  a 
mighi.y"  :  cruction,  until  they  be  destroyed. 

Mil  "o  shall  deliver  their  kings  unto  thine  hand,  and  thou  shall  destroy  their 
lame  from  under  Heaven ;  then  shall  no  man  be  able  to  stand  before  thee,  until  thou 
t :  ve  destroyed  Ihem . 

)  -an  see  what  he  had  her  nails  pared  for.  Does  the  Bible  teach 
polygamy? 

lijr  "Rev.  Dr.  Newman,  consul  general  to  all  the  world — had  a  discus- 
sion with  Elder  Heber  or  Kimball,  or  some  such  wretch  in  Utah — 


140  MISTAKES  OF  INGSRSOLL, 

•whether  the  Bible  sustains  polygamy,  and  the  Mormons  have  printed 
that  discussion  as  a  campaign  document.  Rn;id  the  order  of  Moses  in 
the  "1st  chapter  of  Xumbers.  A  great  many  chapters  I  dare  not  read  to 
you.  They  are  too  flit hy.  I  leave  all  that  to  the  clergy.  Read  the  31st 
chapter  of  Exodus,  the  31st  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  the  life  of  Abra- 
hum,  and  the  life  of  David,  and  the  life  of  Solomon,  and  then  tell  me 
that  the  Bible  does  not  uphold  polygamy  and  concubinage! 

Let  them  answer.  Then  I  said  that  the  Bible  upheld  tyranny.  Let 
me  read  you  a  little:  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers — 
the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God." 

George  III.  was  king  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  when  our  fathers  rose 
in  rebellion,  according  to  this  doctrine,  they  rose  against  the  power  of 
God;  and  if  they  did  they  were  successful. 

And  so  it  goes  on  telling  uf  all  the  cities  that  were  destroyed,  and  of 
the  great-hearted  men,  that  they  dashed  their  brains  out,  and  all  the 
little  babes,  and  all  the  swoet  women  that  they  killed  and  plundered — 
all  in  the  name  of  a  most  merciful  God.  Well,  think  of  it!  The  Old 
Testament  is  filled  with  anathemas,  and  with  curses,  and  with  words  of 
revenge,  and  jealousy,  and  hatred,  and  meanness,  and  brutality. 

Have  1  read  enough  to  show  that  what  I  said  is  so  ?  I  think  I  have. 
I  wish  I  had  time  to  read  to  you  further  of  what  the  dear  old  fathers  of 
the  church  said  about  wo_nan — wait  a  minute,  and  I  will  read  you  a 
little.  We  have  got  them  running. 

St.  Augustine  in  his  22d  book  says:  "A  woman  ought  to  serve  her 
husband  as  unto  God,  affirming  that  woman  ought  to  be  braced  and 
bridled  beti.nes,  if  she  aspire  to  any  dominion,  alleging  that  dangerous 
and  perilous  it  is  to  suffer  her  to  precede,  although  it  be  in  temporal 
and  corporeal  things.  How  can  woman  be  in  the  image  of  God,  seeing 
she  is  subject  to  man,  and  hath  no  authority  to  teach,  neither  to  be  a 
witness,  neither  to  judge,  much  less  to  rule  or  bear  the  rod  of  empire." 

Oh,  he  is  a  good  one.  These  are  the  very  words  of  Augustine.  Let 
me  read  some  more.  "  Woman  shall-  be  subject  unto  man  as  unto 
Christ."  That  is  St.  Augustine,  and  this  sentence  of  Augustine  ought  to 
be  noted  of  all  women,  for  in  it  he  plainly  affirms  that  women  are  all  the 
more  subject  to  man.  And  now,  St.  Ambrose,  he  is  a  good  boy.  "  Adam 
was  deceived  by  Eve — called  Heva — and  not  Heva  by  Adam,  and  there- 
fore just  it  is  that  woman  receive  and  acknowledge  him  for  governor 
whom  she  called  sin,  lest  that  again  she  slip  and  fall  with  womanly 
facility."  Don't  you  see  that  woman  has  sinned  once,  and  man  never  ?  If 
you  give  woman  an  opportunity,  she  will  sin  again,  whereas  if  you  give  it 
to  man,  whenever,  never,  never  betrayed  his  trust  in  the  world,  nothing 
bad  can  happen.  "  Let  women  be  subject  to  their  own  husbands  as  unto 
the  Lord,  for  man  is  the  head  of  woman,  and  Christ  is  the  head  of  the 


SKULLS  AND  HE  PLIES.  141 

coagregation."  They  are  all  real  good  men,  all  of  them.  "  It  is  not 
permitted  to  woman  to  speak;  let  her  be  in  silence;  as  the  law  said: 
unto  thy  husband  shalt  thou  ever  be,  and  he  shall  bear  dominion  over 
thee." 

So  St.  Chrysostom.  He  is  another  good  man.  "  Woman,"  he  says, 
•"was  put  under  the  power  of  man,  and  man  was  pronounced  lord  over 
her;  that  she  should  obey  man,  that  the  head  should  not  follow  the  feet. 
False  priests  do  commonly  deceive  women,  because  they  are  easily  per- 
suaded to  any  opinion,  especially  if  it  be  again  giveu,  and  because  they 
lack  prudence  and  right  reason  to  judge  the  things  that  be  spoken; 
which  should  not  be  the  nature  of  those  that  are  appointed  to  govern 
others.  For  they  should  be  constant,  stable,  prudent,  and  doing  every- 
thing with  discretion  and  reason :  which  virtues  woman  can  not  have 
in  equality  with  man." 

I  tell  you  women  are  more  prudent  than  men.  I  tell  you,  as  a  rule, 
women  are  more  truthful  then  men.  I  tell  you  that  women  are  more 
faithful  than  men — ten  times  as  faithful  as  man.  I  never  saw  a  man 
pursue  his  wife  into  the  very  ditch  and  dust  of  degradation  and  take  her 
in  his  arms.  I  never  saw  a  man  stand  at  the  shore  where  she  had  been 
morally  wrecked,  waiting  for  the  waves  to  bring  back  even  her  corpse  to 
his  arms ;  but  I  have  seen  woman  do  it.  I  have  seen  woman  with  her 
white  arms  lift  man  from  the  mire  of  degradation,  and  hold  him  to  her 
bosom  as  though  he  were  an  angel. 

And  these  men  thought  woman  not  fit  to  be  held  as  pure  in  the  sight 
of  God  as  man.  I  never  saw  a  man  that  pretended  that  he  didn't  love  a 
woman ;  that  pretended  that  he  loved  God  better  than  he  did  a  woman, 
that  he  didn't  look  hateful  to  me,  hateful  and  unclean.  I  could  read 
you  twenty  others,  but  I  haven't  time  to  do  it.  They  are  all  to  the  same 
effect  exactly.  They  hate  woman,  and  say  man  is  as  much  above  her  as 
God  is  above  man.  I  am  a  believer  in  absolute  equality.  I  am  a  be- 
liever in  absolute  liberty  between  man  and  wife.  I  believe  in  liberty, 
and  I  say,  "  Oh,  liberty,  float  not  forever  in  the  far  horizon — remain  not 
forever  in  the  dream  of  the  enthusiast,  the  philanthropist  and  poet;  bu 
come  and  make  thy  home  among  the  children  of  men." 

I  know  not  what  discoveries,  what  inventions,  what  thoughts  may 
leap  from  the  brain  of  the  world.  I  know  not  what  garments  of  glory 
may  be  woven  by  the  years  to  come.  I  can  not  dream  of  the  victories 
to  be  won  upon  the  field  ot  thought ;  but  I  do  know  that,  coming  down 
the  infinite  sea  of  the  future,  there  will  never  touch  this  "  bank  and  shoal 
of  time  "  a  richer  gift,  a  rarer  blessing  than  liberty  for  man,  woman  and 
child. 

I  never  addressed  a  more  magnificent  audience  in  my  life,  and  I  thank 
you,  I  thank  you  a  thousand  times  over. 


?  42  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll's  Catechism  and  Bible  Class. 

Nothing  is  more  gratifying  than  to  see  ideas  that  were  received  with 
«corn,  flourishing  in  the  sunshine  of  approval.  Only  a  few  weeks  ago 
{  stated  that  the  Bible  was  not  inspired ;  that  Moses  was  mistaken ;  that 
the  "flood  "  was  a  foolish  myth ;  that  the  Tower  of  Bauel  existed  only 
Incredulity;  that  God  did  not  create  the  universe  from  nothing,  that 
He  did  not  start  the  first  woman  with  a  rib;  that  He  never  uplicld 
slavery;  that  He  was  not  a  polygamist;  that  He  did  not  kill  people  for 
making  hair-oil :  that  He  did  not  order  His  Generals  to  kill  the  dimpled 
babes ;  that  He  did  not  allow  the  roses  of  love  and  the  violets  of  modesty 
to  be  trodden  under  the  brutal  feet  of  lust ;  that  the  Hebrew  language 
was  written  without  vowels;  that  the  Bible  was  composed  of  many 
books  written  by  unknown  men;  that  all  translations  differed  from  each 
other,  and  that  this  book  had  filled  the  world  with  agony  and  crime. 

At  that  time  I  had  not  the  remotest  idea  that  the  most  learned  clergy- 
men in  Chicago  would  substantially  agree  with  me — in  public.  I  have 
read  the  replies  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Collyer,  Dr.  Thomas,  Rabbi  Kohler, 
Rev.  Brooke  Herford,  Prof  Swing,  and  Dr.  Ryder,  and  will  now  ask 
them  a  few  questions,  answering  them  in  their  own  words : 

First,  Rev.  ROBERT  COLLYER  :  Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of 
the  Bible?  Answer.  "  It  is  a  splendid  book.  It  makes  the  noblest  type 
of  Catholics  and  the  meanest  bigots.  Through  this  book  men  give  their 
hearts  for  good  to  God,  or  for  evil  to  the  Devil.  The  best  argument  for 
the  intrinsic  greatness  of  the  book  is  that  it  can  touch  such  wide 
extremes,  and  seem  to  maintain  us  in  the  most  unparalleled  cruelty,  as 
well  as  the  most  tender  mercy;  that  it  can  inspire  purity  like  that  of 
the  great  saints  and  afford  arguments  in  favor  of  polygamy.  The  Bible 
is  the  text  book  of  ironclad  Calvinism  and  sunny  Universalisui.  It 
makes  the  Quaker  quiet  and  the  Millerite  crazy.  It  inspired  the  Union 
soldier  to  live  and  grandly  die  for  the  right,  and  Stonewall  Jackson  to 
live  nobly  and  die  grandly  for  the  wrong." 

Q.  But,  Mr.  Collyer,  do  you  really  think  that  a  book  with  as  many 
passages  in  favor  of  wrong  as  right,  is  inspired  ?  A.  "  I  look  upon  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  rotting  tree.  When  it  falls  it  will  fertilize  a  bank 
of  violets." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  slavery  and  polygamy?  Do 
you  believe  that  He  ordered  the  killing  of  babes  and  the  violation  of 
maidens?  'A.  "There  is  three-fold  inspiration  in  the  Bible,  the  first 
peerless  and  perfect,  the  Word  of  God  to  man ;  the  second  simply  and 
purely  human,  and  then  below  this  again,  there  is  an  inspiration  born 
of  an  evil  heart,  ruthless  and  savage  there  and  then  as  anything  well 
can  be.  A  three-fold  inspiration,  of  Heaven  first,  then  of  the  Earth,  and 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  143 

then  of  Hell,  all  in  the  same  book,  all  sometimes  in  the  same  chapter, 
and  then,  besides,  a  great  many  things  that  need  no  inspiration." 

Q.  Then,  after  all,  you  do  not  pretend  that  the  Scriptures  are  really 
inspired  ?  A.  "  The  Scriptures  make  no  such  claim  for  themselves  as 
the  Church  makes  for  them.  They  leave  me  free  to  say  this  is  false,  or 
this  is  true.  The  truth  even  within  the  Bible  dies  and  lives,  makes  on 
this  side  and  loses  on  that." 

Q.  What  do  you  say  to  the  last  verse  in  the  Bible,  where  a  curse  is 
threatened  to  any  man  who  takes  from  or  adds  to  the  book  ?  A.  "  I 
have  but  one  answer  to  this  question,  and  it  is:  Let  who  will  have  writ- 
ten this,  I  can  not  for  an  instant  believe  that  it  was  written  by  a  divine 
inspiration.  Such  dogmas  and  threats  as  these  are  not  of  God,  but  of 
man,  and  not  of  any  man  of  a  free  spirit  and  heart  eager  for  the  truth, 
but  a  narrow  man  who  would  cripple  and  confine  the  human  soul  in 
its  quest  after  the  whole  truth  of  God,  and  back  those  who  have  done 
the  shameful  things  in  the  name  of  the  Most  High." 

Q.  Do  you  not  regard  such  talk  as  "  slang  ?" 

(Supposed)  Answer.  If  an  infidel  had  said  that  the  writer  of  Revela- 
tions was  narrow  and  bigoted,  I  might  have  denounced  his  discourse 
as  "  slang,"  but  I  think  that  Unitarian  ministers  can  do  so  with  the 
greatest  propriety. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  stories  of  the  Bible,  about  Jael,  and  the  sun 
standing  still,  and  the  walls  falling  at  the  blowing  of  horns  ?  A.  "They 
may  be  legends,  myths,  poems,  or  what  they  will,  but  they  are  not  the 
Word  of  God.  So  I  say  again,  it  was  not  the  God  and  Father  of  us  all 
who  inspired  the  woman  to  drive  that  nail  crashing  through  the  king's 
temple  after  she  had  given  him  that  bowl  of  milk  and  bid  him  sleep  in 
.*afety,  but  a  very  mean  Devil  of  hatred  and  revenge  that  I  should 
hardly  expect  to  find  in  a  squaw  on  the  plains.  It  was  not  the  ram's 
horns  and  the  shouting  before  which  the  walls  fell  flat.  If  they  went 
down  at  all,  it  was  through  good  solid  pounding.  And  not  for  an  in- 
stant did  the  steady  sun  stand  still  or  let  his  planet  stand  still  while  bar- 
barian fought  barbarian.  He  kept  just  the  time  then  he  keeps  now. 
They  might  believe  it  who  made  the  record.  I  do  not.  And  since  the 
whole  Christian  world  might  believe  it,  still  we  do  not  who  gather  in 
this  church.  A  free  and  reasonable  mind  stands  right  in  our  way. 
Xewton  might  belieVe  it  as  a  Christian  and  disbelieve  it  as  a  philoso- 
pher. We  stand  then  with  the  philosopher  against  the  Christian,  for 
we  must  believe  what  is  true  to  us  in  the  last  test,  and  these  things  are 
not  true." 

SECOND,  REV.  DR.  THOMAS.  Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the 
Old  Testament  ?  Answer.  "  My  opinion  is  that  it  is  not  one  book,  but 
many — thirty-nine  books  bound  up  in  one.  The  date  and  authorship 


144  MISTAKES  OF  TNGERSOLL. 

of  most  of  these  books  are  wholly  unknown.  The  Hebrews  wrote  with- 
out vowels  and  without  dividing  the  letters  into  syllables,  words  or  sen- 
tences. The  books  were  gathered  up  by  Ezra.  At  that  time  only  two 
of  the  Jewish  tribes  remained.  All  progress  had  ceased.  In  gathering 
up  the  sacred  book,  copyists  exercised  great  liberty  in  making  changes 
and  additions." 

Q.  Yes,  we  know  all  that,  but  is  the  Old  Testament  inspired  ?  A. 
"  There  may  be  the  inspiration  of  art,  of  poetry,  or  oratory ;  of  patriot- 
ism— and  there  are  such  inspirations.  There  are  momenta  when  great 
truths  and  principles  come  to  men.  They  seek  (he  man  and  not  the 
man  them." 

Q.  Yes,  we  all  admit  that,  but  is  the  Bible  inspired  ?  A.  "  But  still 
I  know  of  no  way  to  convince  any  one  of  spirit  and  inspiration  and 
God  only  as  His  reason  may  take  hold  of  these  things." 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  Old  Testament  true  ?  A.  "  The  story  of  Edeu 
may  be  an  allegory ;  the  history  of  the  children  of  Israel  may  have  mis- 
takes." 

Q.  Must  inspiration  claim  infallibility  ?  A.  "  It  is  a  mistake  to  say 
that  if  you  believe  one  part  of  the  Bible  you  must  believe  all.  Some  of 
the  thirty-nine  books  may  be  inspired,  others  not;  or  there  may  be» 
degrees  of  inspiration." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  God  commanded  the  soldiers  to  kill  the  chil- 
dren and  the  married  women  and  save  for  themselves  the  maidens,  as 
recorded  in  Numbers  31 :2?  Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  slavery? 
Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  polygamy?  A.  "The  Bible  may  be 
wrong  in  some  statements.  God  and  right  can  not  be  wrong.  We  must 
not  exalt  the  Bible  above  God.  It  may  be  that  we  have  claimed  too 
much  for  the  Bible,  and  thereby  given  not  a  little  occasion  for  such  men 
as  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  appear  at  the  other  extreme,  denying  too  much." 

Q.  What  then  shall  be  done  ?  A.  "  We  must  take  a  middle  ground. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  believe  that  the  bears  devoured  the  forty-two  chil- 
dren, nor  that  Jonah  was  swallowed  by  the  whale." 

THIRD,  REV.  DR.  KOHLER.  Question.  What  is  your  opinion  about 
the  Old  Testament  ?  Answer.  "I  will  not  make  futile  attempts  of  arti- 
ficially interpreting  the  letter  of  the  Bible  so  as  to  make  it  reflect  the 
philosophical,  moral  and  scientific  views  of  our  time.  The  Bible  is  a 
sacred  record  of  humanity's  childhood." 

Q.  Are  you  an  orthodox  Christian  ?  A.  "  No.  Orthodoxy,  with  its 
face  turned  backward  to  a  ruined  temple  or  a  dead  Messiah,  is  fast 
becoming  like  Lot's  wife,  a  pillar  of  salt." 

Q.  Do  you  really  believe  the  Old  Testament  was  inspired  ?  A.  "I 
greatly  acknowledge  our  indebtedness  to  men  like  Voltaire  and  Thomas 
Paine,  whose  bold  denial  a-ul  cutting  wit  were  so  instrumental  in  bring- 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  145 

ing  about  this  glorious  era  of  freedom,  so  congenial  and  blissful,  par 
ticularly  to  the  long-abused  Jewish  race." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible?  A.  "Of  course 
there  is  a  destructive  axe  needed  to  strike  down  the  old  building  in  order 
to  make  room  for  the  grander  new.  The  divine  origin  claimed  by  the 
Hebrews  for  their  national  literature  was  claimed  by  all  nations  for  their 
old  records  and  laws  as  preserved  by  the  priesthood.  As  Moses,  the 
Hebrew  law-giver,  is  represented  as  having  received  the  law  from  God  on 
the  holy  mountain,  so  is  Zoroaster,  the  Persian,  Manu,  the  Hindoo,  Minos, 
the  Cretan,  Lycurgus,  the  Spartan,  and  Numa,  the  Roman." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  all  the  stories  in  the  Bible  ?  A.  "  All  that  can 
and  must  be  said  against  them  is  that  they  have  been  too  long  retained 
around  the  arms  and  limbs  of  grown-up  manhood  to  check  the  spiritual 
progress  of  religion;  that  by  Jewish  ritual  ism  and  Christian  dogmatism 
they  became  fetters  unto  the  soul,  turning  the  light  of  Heaven  into  a 
misty  haze  to  blind  the  eye,  and  even  into  a  Hell  fire  of  fanaticism  to 
consume  souls." 

Q.  Is  the  Bible  inspired?  A.  "True,  the  Bible  is  not  free  from 
errors,  nor  is  any  work  of  man  and  time.  It  abounds  in  childish  views 
and  offensive  matters.  I  trust  that  it  will,  in  a  time  not  far  off,  be  pre- 
sented for  common  use  in  families,  schools,  synagogues  and  churches, 
.in  a  refined  shape,  cleansed  from  all  dross  and  chaff,  and  stumbling- 
blocks  on  which  the  scoffer  delights  to  dwell." 

FOURTH,  REV.  MR.  HERFORD.  Question.  Is  the  Bible  true  ?  Answer. 
"  Ingersoll  is  very  fond  of  saying  '  The  question  is  not,  is  the  Bible 
inspired,  but  is  it  true  ?'  That  sounds  very  plausible,  but  you  know  as 
applied  to  any  ancient  book  it  is  simply  nonsense." 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  stories  in  the  Bible  exaggerated ?  A.  "I  dare 
say  the  numbers  are  immensely  exaggerated." 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  God  upheld  polygamy  ?  A.  "  The  truth  of 
which  simply  is,  that  four  thousand  years  ago  polygamy  existed  among 
the  Jews,  as  everywhere  else  on  earth  then,  and  even  their  prophets  did 
not  come  to  the  idea  of  its  being  wrong.  But  what  is  there  to  be  indig- 
nant) about  in  that  ?" 

Q.  And  so  you  really  wonder  why  any  man  should,  be  indignant  at 
the  idea  that  God  upheld  and  sanctioned  that  beastliness  called  polyg- 
amy? A.  "What  is  there  to  be  indignant  about  in  that?" 

FIFTH,  PROF.  SWING.  Question.  What  is  your  idea  of  the  Bible? 
Answer.  "  I  think  it  a  poem." 

SIXTH,  REV.  Du.  RYDER.    Question.    And  what  is  your  idea  of  the 

sacred  Scriptures?    Answer.    "Like  other  nations,  the  Hebrews  had 

their  patriotic,  descriptive,  didactic  and  lyrical  poems  in  the  same 

varieties  as  other  nations;  but  with  them,  unlike  other  nations,  what- 

10 


t-W  INQERSOTJSS  FUNKRAL  ORATION 

«ver  may  be  the  form  of  their  poetry,  it  always  possesses  the  character- 
istic of  religion." 

Q.  I  suppose  you  fully  appreciate  the  religious  characteristics  of  the 
Song  of  Solomon  ?  No  answer. 

Q.  Does  the  Bible  uphold  polygamy  ?  A.  "  The  law  of  Moses  did 
not  forbid  it,  but  contained  many  provisions  against  its  worst  abuses, 
and  such  as  were  intended  to  restrict  it  within  narrow  limits." 

Q.  So  you  think  God  corrected  some  of  the  worst  abuses  of  polyg- 
amy, but  preserved  the  institution  itself? 

I  might  question  many  others,  but  have  concluded  not  to  consider 
those  as  members  of  my  Bible  class  who  deal  in  calumnies  and  epithets. 
From  the  so-called  "  replies  "  of  such  ministers  it  appears  that,  while 
Christianity  changes  the  heart,  it  does  not  improve  the  manners,  and 
that  one  can  get  into  Heaven  in  the  next  world  without  having  been  a 
gentleman  in  this. 

It  is  difficult  for  me  to  express  the  deep  and  thrilling  satisfaction  I 
have  experienced  in  reading  the  admissions  of  the  clergy  of  Chicago. 
Surely  the  battle  of  intellectual  liberty  is  almost  won  when  ministers 
admit  that  the  Bible  is  filled  with  ignorant  and  cruel  mistakes;  that 
each  man  has  the  right  to  think  for  himself,  and  that  k  is  not  necessary 
to  believe  the  Scriptures  in  order  to  be  saved. 

From  the  bottom  of  my  heart  I  congratulate  my  pupils  on  the 
advance  they  have  m:ide,  and  hope  soon  to  meet  them  on  the  serene 
heights  of  perfect  freedom. 


AT  HIS  BROTHER'S  GRATE 


The  funeral  of  Hon.  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll,  brother  of  Col.  Robert  G.  I 
soil,  of  Illinois,  took  place  at  his  residence  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  June 
2,  1879.  The  ceremonies  were  extremely  simple,  consisting  merely  of 
viewing  the  remains  by  relatives  and  friends,  and  a  funeral  oration  by 
Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll,  brother  of  the  deceased.  A  large  number  of 
distinguished  gentlemen  were  present,  including  Secretary  Shermu,;, 
Assistant  Secretary  Hawle5,  Senators  Blaine,  Voorhees,  Paddock,  Alli- 
son, Logan,  Hon.  Thomas  Henderson,  Gov.  Pound,  Hon.  Win.  M.  Mor- 
rison,  Gen.  Jeffreys,  Gen.  Williams,  Col.  James  Fishback,  and  others. 
The  pall-bearers  were  Senators  Blaine,  Voorhees,  David  Davis,  Paddock 
and  Allison,  Col.  Ward,  H.  Lamou,  Hon.  Jeremiah  Wilson  of  Indiana, 
and  Hon.  Thomas  A.  Boyd  of  Illinois. 


AT  HI 8  BROTHER1 8  GRAVE.  Iff 

Soon  after  Mr.  Ingersoll  began  to  read  his  eloquent  characterization 
of  the  dead,  his  eyes  filled  with  tears.  He  tried  to  hide  them  behind 
his  eye-glasses,  but  he  could  not  do  it,  and  finally  he  bowed  his  head 
upon  the  dead  man's  coffin  in  uncontrolable  grief.  It  was  after  some 
delay  and  the  greatest  efforts  at  self-mastery,  that  Col.  Ingersoll  was 
able  to  finish  reading  his  address,  which  was  as  follows : 

Colonel  Ingersoll's  Funeral  Oration. 

MY  FRIENDS:  I  am  going  to  do  that  which  the  dead  often  promised 
he  would  do  for  me.  The  loved  and  loving  brother,  husband,  father, 
friend,  died  where  manhood's  morning  almost  touches  noon,  and  while 
the  shadows  still  were  falling  toward  the  West.  He  had  not  passed  on 
life's  highway  the  stone  that  marks  the  highest  point,  but  being  weary 
for  a  moment  he  laid  down  by  the  wayside,  and,  using  his  burden  for  a 
pillow,  fell  into  that  dreamless  sleep  that  kisses  down  his  eyelids  still. 
While  yet  in  love  with  life  and  raptured  with  the  world,  he  passed  to 
silence  and  pathetic  dust.  Yet,  after  all,  it  may  be  best,  just  in  the  hap- 
piest, sunniest  hour  of  all  the  voyage,  while  eager  winds  are  kissing 
every  sail,  to  dash  against  the  unseen  rock,  and  in  an  instant  hear  the 
billows  roar  a  sunken  ship.  For,  whether  in  mid-sea  or  among  the 
breakers  of  the  farther  shore,  a  wreck  must  mark  at  last  the  eud  of 
.each  and  all.  And  every  life,  no  matter  if  its  every  hour  is  rich  with 
love  and  every  moment  jeweled  with  a  joy,  will,  at  its  close,  become  a 
tragedy,  as  sad,  ai;d  deep,  and  dark  as  can  be  woven  of  the  warp  and 
wo.  >f  of  mystery  and  death.  This  brave  and  lender  man  in  every  storm 
of  life  was  oak  and  rock,  but  in  the  sunshine  he  was  vine  and  flower. 
He  was  the  friend  of  all  heroic  souls.  He  climbed  tlie  heights  and  left 
all  superstitions  far  below,  Avhile  on  his  forehead  Tell  the  golden  dawning 
of  a  grander  day.  He  luvtd  the  beautiful  and  was  with  color,  form, 
and  music  touched  to  tears.  He  sided  with  the  weak,  and  with  a  willing 
hand  gave  alms  ;  with  loyal  heart  and  with  the  purest  hand  he  faith- 
fully discharged  all  public  trusts.  He  was  a  worshipper  of  liberty  and 
a  friend  of  the  oppressed.  A  thousand  times  I  .have  heard  him  quote 
the  words  :  "For  justice  all  place  a  temple  and  all  season  summer." 
He  believed  that  happiness  was  the  only  good,  reason  the  only  torch, 
justice  the  only  worshipper,  humanity  the  only  religion,  and  love  the 
priest 

He  added  to  the  sum  of  human  joy,  and  were  every  one  for  whom 
he  did  some  loving  service  to  bring  a  blossom  to  his  grave  he  would 
sleep  to-night  beneath  a  wilderness  of  flowers.  Life  is  a  narrow  vale 
between  the  cold  and  barren  peaks  of  two  eternities.  We  strive  in  vain 
to  look  beyond  the  heights.  We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the 
echo  of  our  wailing  cry.  From  the  voiceless  lips  of  the  unreplying 
dead  there  comes  no  word;  but  in  the  night  of  death  hope  sees  a  star 
and  li>tening  love  can  hear  the  rustle  of  a  wing.  He  who  sleeps  here, 
when  dying,  mistaking  the  approach  of  death  for  the  return  of  health, 
whispered  with  his  latest  breath,  "  I  am  better  now."  Let  us  believe, 
in  spite  of  doubts  and  dogmas  and  tears  and  fears  that  these  dear  words 
are  true  of  all  the  countless  dead.  And  now,  to  you  who  have  been 
chosen  from  among  the  many  men  he  loved  to  do  the  last  sad  office  for 
the  dead,  we  give  his  sacred  dust.  Speech  can  not  contain  our  love. 
There  was — there  is — no  gentler,  stronger,  manlier  man. 


148  INOERSOLD8  FUNERAL  ORATION. 

BEECHER'S  COMMENTS. 


Henry  Ward  Beecher's  Comments  on  Mr.  lugersoll's  Faith,  and 
Funeral  .Discourse. 

"  The  root  element  of  faith  is  in  the  imagination.  The  tendency  of 
our  age,  or  in  certain  lines  of  it,  is  a  rising  tendency  among  the  educated 
to  give  to  the  evidence  of  the  physical  senses  not  only  greater  weight 
than  comes  with  the  imagination,  but  to  deny  to  the  imagination  all  use 
except  that  of  producing  pleasure.  To  a  certain  extent  we  are  indebted 
for  this  to  the  perversion  of  religious  views.  The  ascetic  school  ban- 
ished the  imagination  from  religion  and  made  it  a  mere  minion  of 
pleasure  and  turned  the  thoughts  of  men  to  what  are  called  weightier 
things.  We  are  told  in  the  serious  words  of  the  ascetic  teachers  that 
life  is  too  important  to  trifle  away.  They  have  stripped  off  the  wings 
of  the  imagination  to  make  quills  to  write  their  dull  treatises  withal. 
There  is  also  danger  from  the  scientific  or  materialistic  tendencies  ot 
the  age,  the  votaries  of  which  hold  that  all  things  must  be  proven  by 
tangible  evidence — that  the  soul  is  but  matter.  But  taking  the  mate- 
rialistic view  that  the  soul  is  but  matter,  it  is  matter  so  different  from  or- 
dinary matter  that  it  is  to  be  judged  by  entirely  different  laws.  But 
without  taking  that  ground  and  adhering  as  I  do  to  the  ground  that  it 
is  a  spiritual  matter,  the  necessity  is  much  stronger  for  applying  the  true 
principle  in  dealing  with  its  consideration. 

"There  is  a  growing  tendency  towards  materialism  in  the  German 
mind,  and  this  has  long  been  the  tendency  of  the  French  mind.  It  has 
made  inroads  into  the  sturdy  old  English  mind,  and  it  has  with  ten 
thousand  other  immigrants  that  we  could  have  spared  come  across  the 
seas  and  gained  a  foothold  here.  But  to  apply  to  the  imagination  the 
same  rules  you  apply  to  things  that  have  no  imagination  is  impolitic, 
unphilosophical  and  unwise.  There  are  a  great  many  men  who  say 
with  Tyndall :  '  If  you  present  God  as  a  poem  I  can  accept  it,  but  if 
you  present  Him  as  a  fact  I  resist  it ;  I  say  there  is  no  evidence ;  it  is  not 
proven.'  There  are  realities  which  can  not  be  proven.  No  formula  can 
demonstrate  the  sentiment  of  honor;  yet  honor  demonstrates  itself, 
and  the  intellect  discerns  things  by  the  aid  of  the  imagination  that 
it  can  not  discern  without  it.  Reasonings  are  no  more  than  spider- 
webbings. 

"  That  which  comforts  must  be  accepted  as  true,  although  it  can  not  be 
proven  by  any  direct  line  of  evidence.  Take,  for  instance,  the  pictures 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  which  are  the  objects  of  such  veneration  to  devout 


BEECHEK8  COMMENTS.  149 

Homan  Catholics.  They  are  not  really  the  Virgin  Mary;  they  don't 
even  look  like  her ;  but  they  are  a  representation  of  the  tenderness  of 
the  mother  towards  the  child,  and  that  tenderness  is  a  reality.  I,  too, 
hang  the  pictures  in  my  parlor  and  in  my  bedroom,  and  I,  too,  am  a 
worshipper  of  the  Virgin.  I  worship  the  tender,  loving  spirit  of  God 
out  of  which  theology  has  eheated  us.  Put  that  in  theology  and  you 
would  not  want  any  pictorial  illustration.  So  as  to  ministering  angels ; 
I  never  thought  of  an  angel  except  with  wings.  I  never  saw  an  angel 
painted  with  wings  that  it  did  not  look  like  an  old  hen  to  me.  So  with 
ministering  angels.  The  moment  you  apply  to  them  all  that  belongs  to 
them  that  moment  you  destroy  them. 

"  A  French  philosopher  once  said  very  truly :  '  Everybody  believes  in 
God  until  you  attempt  to  prove  his  existence.'  Take  the  existence  of  the 
soul  in  heaven — that  is  a  mere  question  of  reason  without  evidence  such 
as  belongs  to  regulated  forms  of  matter — and  it  is  full  of  obscurities 
But  let  it  hang  in  the  realm  of  imagination  and  it  is  not  only  the  product 
of  the  imagination  of  one  man,  but  of  all  the  nations  through  the  growth 
of  time.  It  is  the  imagination  that  has  been  reaped  and  threshed  and 
winnowed  and  grown  into  the  very  bread  of  life.  It  is  not  any  poem 
or  notion ;  it  is  the  work,  the  final  work  of  the  imagination  of  the 
human  race,  speaking  all  languages,  under  all  governments;  it  is  the 
result  to  which  men  come— that  death  doesn't  stop  human  life;  it  goes 
on  unending. 

"  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  a  man  of  great  merit  and  power  and  he  has  made 
himself  perhaps tis  widely  known  as  almost  any  other  man  in  this  gen- 
eration by  his  contemning  of,  I  will  not  say  religion,  but  of  those  views 
of  religion  handed  down  to  us  by  the  teachers  of  'Christianity.  He  has 
great  power  of  the  imagination — a  flaming  wit — and  has  said  a  great 
many  things,  not  wise,  but  by  which  wise  men  may  profit.  He  has 
uttered  a  great  many  criticisms  on  the  subject  of  Christianity  which  are 
just  criticisms,  yet  taking  his  views  of  religion  as  a  whole,  they  lack 
completeness ;  it  is  a  special  plea,  a  fault-finding  plea,  which  sees  only 
one  side.  Now,  while  I  accord  to  him  the  extremes!  liberty  of  discus- 
sion and  disclaim  any  right  to  interfere  with  this  liberty,  we  hare  a  right 
to  whatever  of  instruction  there  may  be,  and  I  think  he  can  instruct  us 
by  his  latest  utterance.  He  has  lost  a  brother  dearly  beloved,  a  good 
man  who  lived  happily  with  his  family  and  was  respected  by  the  com- 
munity, and  at  that  brother's  funeral,  Mr.  Ingersoll  made  one  of 'the 
most  exquisite^  yet  one  of  the  most  sad  and  mournful,  sermons  that  I 
ever  ^ad. 

"  v  is  ever  anything  uttered  by  the  lips  of  man  more  pathetic  ?  But  we 
&*•  ot  only  a  hope,  we  have  the  certainty — we  know  that  if  our 


150  INQERSOLDS  FUNERAL  ORATION. 

earthy  tabernacle  is  lost  we  have  a  building  not  made  with  hands  eternal 
in  the  heavens.  To  us  the  sweet  voice  comes  under  burdens,  under  sor- 
rows, in  pain,  in  persecution,  in  the  prison  dungeon — the  voice  of  the 
spirit  and  the  bride  says  come  and  the  voice  of  the  whole  Church  of 
God  cries  out  to  us  '  it  is  real,  it  is  real — come ; '  and  when  this  noble 
brother  of  Mr.  lugersoll  felt  the  touch  of  death,  I  don't  doubt  he  felt 
the  touch  of  God  the  second  time,  and  saw  in  the  eternal  world  things 
which  he  had  counted  but  shadows  here.  Even  skepticism  and  that 
which  had  been  provocative  of  skepticism  in  others  says  when  it  comes 
to  the  death  of  hope  :  '  In  spite  of  doubts  or  dogmas,  let  us  hope  that 
there  is  a  better  world.'  " 


ARNOLD'S   COMMENTS. 


Hon.  Isaac  N.  Arnold's  Comments  on   IngersolTs  Funeral 
Oration. 

The  sad,  pathetic,  and  almost  hopeless  cry  of  Robert  G.  Ingersoll 
over  the  grave  of  his  brother  has  been  widely  read.  It  is  eloquent  with 
feeling,  and  shows  that  his  heart  is  tender  and  affectionate ;  and  one  can 
not  but  sympathize  with  a  grief  which  is  not  soothed  by  any  hope  of  a 
reunion  hereafter.  He  says,  speaking  of  death:  "Whether  in  mid- 
sea  or  among  the  breakers  of  the  farther  shore,  a  wreck  must  mark 
at  last  the  end  of  each  and  all ;  and  every  life  .  .  will  at  its  close 
become  a  tragedy  as  sad,  and  deep,  and  dark  as  can  "be  woven  of  the 
•warp  and  woof  of  mystery  and  death.  And  Life  is  a  narrow  vale 
between  the  cold  and  barren  peaks  of  two  eternities.  We  strive  in  vain 
to  look  beyond  the  hights.  We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the 
echo  of  our  wailing  cry." 

This,  then,  is  the  despairing  moan  of  one  of  the  brightest  infidels  of 
our  country — of  one  who  is  doing  more  to  destroy  faith  in  God  and 
immortality  than  any  other!  How  striking  the  contrast  between  such 
a  "  wreck,"  as  Ingersoll  calls  it,  and  the  joyous,  hopeful  death  of  a 
Christian. 

I  have  lately  been  reading  an  account  of  the  last  hours  of  Sir  Walter 
Scott.  As  death  approached  this  great  and  healthy-minded  Scotchman, 
he  asked  Lockhart  to  read  to  him. 

"  What  shall  I  read  ?"  said  Lockhart. 

"  Need  you  ask  ?"  said  Sir  Walter.  "  There  is  but  one  Book."  And 
the  words  that  have  comforted  the  dying  and  soothed  the  living  for 
eighteen  hundred  years  fell  gratefully  upon  his  ear: 

Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled.  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions.  I  jjo 
to  prepare  a  place  for  you. 


ARNOLD'S  COMMENTS.  151 

"  Lockhart,"  were  the  last  words  of  Scott,  "  Lockhart,  I  have  bur,  a 
moment  to  speak  to  you ;  my  dear,  be  a  good  man ;  be  virtuous,  be 
religious !  Nothing  else  will  give  you  any  comfort  when  you  come  to 
lie  here." 

Ingersoll  sadly  says  over  the  remains  of  his  beloved  brother,  "  We 
cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the  echo  of  our  wailing  cry ;"  and, 
speaking  of  his  dead  brother,  he  says:  "  He  climbed  the  hights,  and 
left  all  superstition  far  below." 

If  such  are  the  results  of  "  climbing  the  hights ;"  if  to  climb  is 
only  to  look  into  the  black  gulf  of  despair,  to  hear  over  the  grave  only 
the  "  echoes  of  our  wailing  cry,"  who  would  not  rather  stay  in  the 
•warm  valley  of  faith  and  hope  ? 

I  would  kindly  ask  Ingersoll,  Are  not  faith  and  hope,  better  than 
doubt  and  despair?  And,  if  so,  why  make  it  your  life's  mission  to 
ridicule,  satirize,  and  destroy  the  faith  and  hope  <>f  the  thousands  who 
find  in  their  religion  the  only  refuge  from  the  sufferings  and  sorrows  of 
this  life?  Why  labor  to  make  your  brother  of  humanity  believe  that 

he  is  but — 

The  pilgrim  of  a  day? 

Spouse  of  the  worm  and  brother  of  the  clay, 
Frail  as  the  leaf  in  Autumn's  yellow  bower, 
Dust  in  the  wind,  or  dew  upon  the  flower? 
******* 

A  child  without  a  eire. 
Whose  mortal  life  and  transitory  fire 
Light  to  the  grave  his  chance-created  form, 
As  ocean  wrecks  illuminate  the  storm. 
And  then — 

To  night  and  silence  sink  forevermore! 

If  these— 

The  pompous  teachings  ye  proclaim, 
Lights  of  the  world  and  demi-gods  oi  fame, 
The  laurel  wreath  tbat  murderer  rears, 
Blood  nursed  and  watered  by  the  widow's  tears, 
Seems  not  so  foul,  so  tainted,  and  so  dread, 
As  the  dally  nightshade  round  the  skeptic's  head. 

Infidelity  is  indeed  the  "  deadly  nightshade,'4  deadly  alike  to  happi- 
jiess  and  to  virtue.  There  are  exceptions  like  Ingersoll,  who  have 
inherited  from  their  Christian  ancestors  natures  so  generous  that  their 
sturdy  virtues  have  resisted  the  deadly  influence. 

But  every  blow  this  modern  apostle  of  infidelity  strikes  against 
Christianity  is  a  blow  in  favor  of  vice  and  immorality.  To  the  young 
man  whose  faith  Ingersoll  by  his  wit  and  eloquence  has  shaken,  I  would 
say,  listen  to  his  cry  of  despair  over  his  dead  brother,  and  compare  it 
with  the  Christian's  triumphant  death  and  joyous  hope,  and  choose  the 
truth. 


In  his  recent  lecture  entitled  "What  Shall  We  Do  to  Be 
Saved?"  (appended  to  the  replies  in  this  volume)  Colonel 
Ingersoll  has  made  a  "new  departure."  So  far  as  this  lec- 
ture makes  reference  to  Jesus  Christ  it  is  hailed  with  de- 
light. The  references,  however,  made  to  "  interpolations," 
etc.,  have  called  forth  various  "  replies,"  the  principal  of 
.  which  we  have  carefully  put  on  record  in  this  book.  They 
are  by  Professor  Swing,  Dr.  Thomas,  Bishop  Fallows,  and 
others,  whose  learning  and  sincerity  insure  a  "  fair  rejoin- 
der." We  acknowledge  our  indebtedness  to  the  press  of 
the  Garden  City. 

J.  B.  M'CLURE. 
CHICAGO,  October  1st,  1880. 


fage. 
REPLY  or  PKOFESSOR  DAVID  SWING i? 

Col.  Ingersoll's  Xew  Lecture  under  Prof.  Swing's  Stero- 
scope— He  Finds  it  Witty,  Powerful  and  Worthy  of 

"All  Fair  Rejoinder" 17 

Matthew's  Gospel.  19 

The  Colonel  is  Xot  Sound  in  the  Faith 21 

Christianity  Philosophically  Considered— It  Must  Xot  be 

Confounded  with  the  Follies  of  Man 22 

The  Weak  Points  in  Ingersoll's  Lecture 2.7 ' 

The  Colonel's  Cruel  Advice,  which  He  Himself  Does 

.     Not  Follow— A  Solid  Shot  from  Prof.  Swing 26 

The  Grand  Architecture  of  Home — An  Eloquent  Per- 
oration         28 

REPLY  OF  DR.  H.  W.  THOMAS 31 

Points  Wherein  the  Doctor  and  the  Colonel  Agree  and 

Differ— A  Fair  and  Candid  Rejoinder 31 

IngersolFs  Xew  Departure — What  the  Doctor  says 

About  it 33 

The  Teachings  of  Christ  Emphasized— Character  Rather 

Than  Dogma. C5 

vi. 


CONTENTS.  vli. 


KEPLY  OF  DR.  GEOKGE  C.  LORIMER  .......................  39 

The  Scope  of  the  Lecture,  and  Not  the  Lecturer,  undei 

Consideration  —  The  Issue  —  Faith  and  Works  .......  39 

Theology  Progressive  —  Creeds,  Faith,  Etc  ...............  41 

Ingersoll's  Gospel  under  the  Doctor's  Microscope  Shows 
a  Fatal  Contradiction—  God  Forgives,  but  "  Bob  "  is 
for  "  Inexorable  Justice"—  The  Colonel,  in  Fact,  an 

Extreme  Calvinist  ..................................  43 

Ingersoll  Does  Not  Answer  the  Question,  "  What  Shall 

We  Do  to  Be  Saved  V  ...............................  44 

Authenticity  of  the  New  Testament  ....................  45 

The  Gospel  Plan  of  Salvation  ..........................  47 

The  Vital  Kelation  of  Faith  to  the  Soul—  Its  Elevating 

and  Saving  Power  When  Fixed  on  Jesus  Christ  .....  50 

Saved,  Not  for  Faith's  Sake,  Nor  Works'  Sake,  But  for 

Christ's  Sake  ........................................  51 

Infidelity  Unmasked  ...................................  53 

REPLY  OF  PROFESSOR  SAMUEL  IVES  CURTIS  ................  55 

A  Little  Story  —  Ingersoll  "  Innocent  of   Greek,"  and 

the  Consequences  ..................................  55 

Ingersoll's  Interpolations  "  Won't  Do."  ................  56 

Love  and  Obedience  ....................................  58 

Faith  in  Christ  the  Great  Basis  of  Salvation  ........  60 

BEPLY  OF  DR.  FREDERICK  COURTNEY..  .  .,<  ...............  68 

Preparatory  Statement  .................................  63 

Ingersoll's  Alleged  Interpolations  ......................  64 

Clear,  Pointed,  and  Pungent  Answers  to  a  Number  of 

Ingersoll's  Assertions  ..............................  66 

How  Shall  We  Account  for  the  Kingdom  of  Christ?.  .  .  70 

Christ  the  Summit  of  History  ............   -      .....  72 


viii.  CONTENTS. 

Page. 
The  Facts  of  Faith— A  Few  Words  About  "  Believing."       75 

More  About  Faith 77 

The  Anathanasian   Creed 81 

John  Stuart  Mill  at  Variance  with  Ingersoll  on  the 

Human  Will „ 83 

The  Gospel  of  Good    Cooking— Does   "Bob"    Under- 
stand It? 84 

BEPLY  OF  BISHOP  FALLOWS 87 

The   Bishop  Believes  the    Colonel  Is  Making   "True 

Progress  " 87 

The  Facts  in  the  Case 88 

How  Gels  us,  the  Ingersoll  of  the  Second  Century,  Did  a 

Great  Work  for  the  Church 91 

APPENDED  :    Ingersoll's  Lecture,  "  What  Shall  We  Do  to  Be 

Saved?" 0;J 

Ingersoll's  Answer  to  Prof.  Swing,  Dr.  Thomas,  and 

Others 121 


SlicuLl  "we  cLo  to  IBe 

—BY- 
PROF.  SWING,  PROF.  CURTIS, 
DR.  THOMAS,  BISHOP  FALLOWS, 
DR.  LORIMER,                   DR.  COURTNEY, 

AND  OTHERS. 


OIF1   lE'IROIF1. 


Col.  Ingersoll's  New  Lecture  Under  the  Professor's  Stereoscope— He  Finds  it 
Witty.  Eloquent,  Powerful,  and  "  Worthy  of  All  Fair  Rejoinder." 

It  has  not  been  quite  a  year  since,  along  with  many  other 
pastors  of  this  city,  I  gave  my  personal  convictions  that, 
in  order  to  be  saved,  man  must,  to  the  best  of  his  ability, 
obey  the  laws  of  right.  I  attempted  to  show  that  whatever 
work  Christ  may  have  done  to  help  man  find  the  favor  of 
the  Supreme  Judge,  man  must  himself  be  a  sincere  doer  of 
right  things.  Conduct  is  the  path  of  safety.  As  earthly 
society  depends  for  its  quality  and  happiness  upon  the 
character  of  its  members,  so  all  society,  in  earth  or  in 
Heaven,  must  depend  upon  the  actions  and  desires  of  the 


18  REPLY  TO  INtiEliXOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE. 

individual  members,  coine  they  from  any  clime  or  age.  I 
stated  then  my  own  opinions  so  fully  that  it  would  be 
wearisome  to  all  of  us  to  pass  again  over  the  same  ground; 
hence  it  will  be  my  purpose  this  morning  to  point  to  some 
parts  of  Mr.  IngersolTs  theory,  rather  than  to  discuss  fully 
his  theme  of  last  Sunday,  ""What  Must  Man  Do  to  Be 
Saved?" 

Much  of  the  long  address  of  the  interesting  speaker  was 
aimed  at  the  follies  of  an  older  time,  at  fanaticism,  and 
ignorance,  and  cruelty;  and  should  such  wit  poured  out  be- 
fore large  audiences  in  all  parts  of  the  land  only  bring  more 
fully  to  an  end  all  such  bad  phases  of  human  nature,  it 
would  not  be  labor  lost.  But,  besides  rendering  unpopular 
old  follies,  this  wit  must  tend  to  make  contemptible  some 
principles  and  persons  true  and  noble;  and  for  this  reason 
it  is  not  our  privilege  to  pass  in  silence  such  an  entertain- 
ing and  even  powerful  discourse.  I  cannot  find  it  in  my 
heart  or  judgment  to  say,  as  many  do,  that  such  addresses 
are  not  "  worth  answering."  Not  only  are  all  the  speeches 
v  of  that  gentleman  very  acute  and  convincing,  and  therefore 
worthy  of  all  fair  rejoinder,  but  they  are  so  original  that 
they  invite  new  lines  of  argument  from  the  clergy,  and  en- 
able the  pulpit  to  see  itself  and  present  itself  in  many  new 
and  more  rational  lights. 

In  this  recent  address  there  was  much  of  rhetorical  flour- 
ish that  came  from  the  speaker's  love  of  the  grotesque 
rather  than  from  the  direct  merit  of  the  case.  All  that  wvs 
said  about  the  interpolations  in  the  writings  of  Matthew 
must  be  attributed  to  humor  or  recklessness.  It  might  as 
well  be  affirmed  that  interested  parties  had  inserted  ideas 
freely  into  the  manuscripts  of  Tacitus,  or  Seneca,  or  Virgil, 
or  that  Tacitus  or  Seneca  never  saw  the  books  which  now 
bear  their  names.  That  memoir  of  Jesus  is  just  as  honest 
and  genuine  a  manuscript  as  any  piece  of  writing  that  ha* 


BY  PROF.  SWING.  19 

come  down  from  any  far-off  period.  And,  furthermore,  s 
lawyer  should  set  the  clergy  an  example  of  that  mental 
power  which  can  discern  at  once  the  irrelevant  and  the  rel- 
evant. We  are  all  taught  to  look  to  the  legal  profession  to 
learn  how  grand  a  thing  is  pure  reason  compared  with 
mere  feelings  and  superficial  studies.  But  it  now  seems 
that  this  popular  lawyer  does  not  perceive  that  Christianity 
no  more  rests  upon  the  accuracy  of  a  manuscript  than  the 
United  States  rests  upon  the  accuracy  of  Bancroft,  or  the 
glory  of  England  upon  the  truth  or  capacity  of  her  histo- 
rians. It  may  be  that  the  man  Matthew  never  saw  that 
Gospel  which  we  call  Matthew.  What  is  the  inference? 
The  book  is  simply  anonymous. 

Matthew's  Gospel. 

It  was  very  common  in  that  period  for  writings  to  be 
without  a  name.  Many  poems  are,  by  a  kind  of  courtesy, 
ascribed  to  Anacreon  and  Homer,  and  prose  essays  without 
number  have  come  along  through  the  classic  period  with 
no  known  authorship.  Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  Matthew  never  wrote  the  Gospel  which  bears 
his  name,  and  that  to  the  nameless  memoir  many  additions 
were  made  by  persons  who  had  some  interest  to  secure,  the 
conclusion  to  be  drawn  is  that  we  must  make  a  closer  study 
of  those  times  to  find,  if  possible,  what  were  the  facts  amid 
which  that  memoir  of  a  Christ  came  into  circulation.  A 
great  religious  fact  will  no  more  depend  upon  a  Matthew 
than  a  great  political  fact  will  depend  upon  a  Hume,  or  a 
Gibbon,  or  a  Macaulay. 

The  younger  Pliny,  a  Roman  pagan  and  a  political 
enemy  of  Christianity,  lived  in  that  very  period  out  of , 
which  the  Gospel  history  sprang,  and,  with  his  mind  full 
of  bitter  prejudices,  he  wrote  the  following  words  to  his 
Emperor,  Trajan :  "  These  Christians  assemble  on  an  ap- 
peinted  time,  and  sing  alternately  the  praises  of  Christ  as  a 


20  REPLY  OT  INGER8OLLS  NEW  LECTURE, 

Divine  Being.  They  bind  themselves  by  an  oath  not  to 
commit  any  crime,  to  abstain  from  theft  and  impure  con- 
duct, to  fulfill  every  promise,  and  not  to  deny  any  trust 
confided  to  them.  Afterward  they  separate,  and  again 
come  together  to  partake  of  an  innocent  repast."  Thus  we 
have  a  Gospel  according  to  Pliny,  a  Gospel  not  in  any  way 
dependent  upon  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John;  and  it  is 
this  stubborn  historic  fact  that  stands  as  the  basis  of  the 
modern  religion.  Those  men  and  women  who  assembled 
together  to  sing  responsive  hymns  to  a  Divine  Being 
did  also  bind  themselves  by  an  oath  to  commit  no  crime, 
to  steal  nothing,  to  live  purely,  and  to  keep  every  promise, 
and  not  to  refuse  any  duty  confided  to  them.  The  same 
writer,  Pliny,  said  that  so  many  had  entered  into  this  holy 
compact  that  the  temples  of  the  Roman  gods  were  daily 
becoming  deserted,  and  the  sale  of  animals  for  sacrifice  had 
almost  ceased. 

The  salient  point  for  such  a  pretentious  reasouer  as  Mr. 
Ingersoll  to  attack  was  not  what  poor  Matthew  may  have 
said  about  the  new  religion,  but  the  merits  of  the  new  re- 
ligion itself,  as  it  came  along  with  its  deep  and  glowing  prin- 
ciples, and  with  its  amazing  Leader,  before  whom  even  the 
infidels  all  bow  with  reverence.  Along  came  that  moral 
fact  seen  by  Pliny,  and  Trajan,  and  Tacitus,  audit  gradually 
displaced  the  morals  and  belief  of  Home,  and  wrought  out 
for  the  world  a  new  code  of  not  only  law  and  morals,  but  of 
a  most  tender  charity.  It  would  seem  a  better  application 
of  eloquence,  and  almost  genius,  should  the  public  speaker 
under  notice  take  the  positive  side  of  Christianity,  and  tell 
the  young  men  that  the  world  has  never  seen  anything 
nobler,  or  more  useful,  or  happier,  than  those  compacts  of 
integrity  and  purity  which  those  thousands  entered  into 
when  they  met  in  the  name  of  Christ  and  sang  responsive 
hymns  in  the  morning  air.  An  orator  who  can  gain  the 


BY  PROF.  SWING.  21 

ear  and  the  heart,  too,  of  tens  of  thousands  of  youth  ought 
not  to  teach  them  how  to  ridicule  a  Matthew  or  a  Calvin, 
but  rather  teach  them  how  to  trace  the  risings  of  new  phi- 
losophy full  of  righteousness  and  charity,  and  how  to  appre- 
ciate such  an  exalted  being  as  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Colonel  is  not  "  Sound  in  the  Faith." 

Not  only  is  all  j-idicule  or  criticism  of  Matthew  irrelevant 
to  any  one  speaking  from  the  philosophic  standpoint,  but 
all  the  time  and  words  spent  against  the  idea  of  salvation 
by  faith  are  wasted  so  far  as  Christianity  is  itself  concerned. 
Such  objections  as  were  raised  in  the  address  of  last  Sun- 
day weigh  against  only  those  who  hold  to  a  salvation  by  be- 
lief. Doubtless  there  are  some  individual  Christians  who 
are  expecting  to  be  saved  by  faith,  and  there  are  some 
denominations  which  still  make  use  of  that  formula  of 
words;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  doctrine  that  man  is 
saved  by  a  belief  is  so  far  abandoned  by  the  great  denomin- 
ations that  the  Church  no  longer  merits  rebuke,  or  abuse, 
or  laughter  on  account  of  that  peculiar  idea.  A  hundred 
years  ago  the  Church  universal  needed  much  plain  talk 
from  infidel  or  from  any  one  able  -to  give  it,  for  it  did  hold 
to  a  method  of  pleasing  God  that  was  false  and  deeply  in- 
jurious. Luther  declared  that  there  was  no  sin  for  which 
faith  in  Christ  would  not  be  taken  as  an  atonement  or  com- 
pensation in  the  day  of  final  judgment.  But  this  tenet  haa 
of  late  years  rapidly  become  obsolete.  ISTot  one  of  the  large 
denominations  which  now  make  up  the  Christian  commun- 
ity would  accept  of  what  Martin  Luther  announces  about 
the  office  of  faith.  They  would  join  with  the  infidel  in 
affirming  that  faith  cannot  take  in  any  manner  the  place  of 
morality.  By  "faith"  in  Christ  a  fidelity  to  His  teachings 
is  generally  understood. 

Salvation  by  faith  is  a  salvation  by  a  personal  faithfulness 
to  a  great  law  and  a  great  Master.     What  Pliny  saw  when 


22  REPLI  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

he  wrote  to  his  Emperor  that  those  new  religionists  assem- 
bled each  morning  and  made  pledges  to  each  other  in  the 
name  of  Christ  to  do  ne  wrong,  this  taking  of  a  solemn 
vow  was  the  act  of  faith,  which  became  a  conspicuous  part 
in  the  plan  of  safety.  Instead  of  saving  a  wicked  man,  the 
first  act  of  Christianity  was  to  make  each,  heart  vow  to  be 
righteous,  and  benevolent,  and  virtuous.  Faith  in  Christ 
implied  an  abandonment  of  Paganism  as  a  religion,  and  of 
all  immorality  as  a  practice,  and  an  espousal  of  that  new 
leadership  which  appeared  in  Judea.  And  if  Christ  was 
indeed  a  person  before  whom  even  infidelity  and  atheism 
bow  in  reverence,  this  vow  of  faith  was  not  an  empty  action 
in  that  olden  time,  and  will  not  be  in  our  day.  Sent  out  to 
arrest  and  punish  the  early  followers  of  Jesus,  Plinv  reported 
that  he  could  not  find  them  guilty  of  crimes,  but  only  of  a 
pitiable  superstition.  To  the  early  Christian  it  therefore 
teemed  a  first  requisite  that  they  should  live  without  crimes. 

Christianity  Philosophically  Considered    It  Must  Not  be  Confounded  With 
the  Follies  of  Man. 

If  subsequent  periods  perverted  that  simple  religion,  and 
declared  that  a  sinner  could  be  saved  by  giving  assent  to 
certain  doctrines,  or  that  a  sinner  could  buy  Heaven  by 
paying  certain  sums  ot  money  into  the  treasury  of  a  church, 
all  such  events  in  the  intellectual  world  must  be  classed 
among  the  blunders  and  vices  of  society.  The  institution 
of -marriage  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  what  the  Mor- 
mons may  have  made  of  it  on  the  one  hand,  or  what  the 
Oneida  Community  may  have  made  of  it  on  the  other.  That 
social  compact  must  be  looked  at  in  all  the  lights,  and  must 
not  be  seen  only  in  a  Mormon  settlement  or  in  a  divorce 
case.  So  the  religion  of  our  day  cannot  b*e  justly  painted 
by  dipping  the  brush  into  the  ugly,  or  pale,  or  dirty  colors 
of  ignorant  and  wicked  times,  but  it  can  be  seen  rightly 
only  by  minds  wide  enough  and  fair  enough  to  separate  the 


BY  PROF:  SWING.  23 

absolute  from  the  incidental.  There  are  many  clergymen 
now  engaged  in  active  duty  in  their  profession  who,  if  they 
were  compelled  to  find  the  doctrines  of  their  Christianity 
in  the  books  of  only  certain  old  Romanists  and  old  Calvin- 
ists,  would  at  once  descend  from  their  pulpits  and  join  with 
those  who  live  without  God  and  without  hope;  but  they 
remain,  and  remain  with  happy  hearts,  because  there  is  a 
religion — a  Christianity — that  has  not  been  ruined  or  even 
marred  by  any  blundering  man  or  blundering  century. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  forgets  how  difficult  it  has  always  been  for 
man  to  keep  pure  any  form  of  philosophy.  Suppose  society 
should  conclude  to  adopt  the  creed  which  this  gentleman 
set  forth  a  week  ago,  in  what  condition  would  he  find  that 
creed  and  the  public  practice  of  it  should  its  author  come 
back  to  earth  in  a  hundred  years  and  move  about  amoii£ 

V 

his  so-called  apostles?  Man  is  slow  in  finding  the  deepest 
and  best  meaning  of  any  of  his  systems  of  action  or  thought. 
[Republics  have  come  and  gone  because  men,  even  the 
wisest,  find  slowly  the  many  details  which  must  be  com- 
bined to  make  the  perfect  and  the  enduring  State.  It  is 
wondered  yet  whether  our  continent  has  found  the  republic- 
anism that  will  endure.  That  we  have  found  many  of  the 
elements  of  power  and  durability  all  confess;  but  there  may 
be  some  defect  in  the  moral  education  of  the  young,  or  some 
excess  in  our  love  of  material  things,  that  will  in  a  half 
century  begin  to  make  our  grand  liberty-tree  scatter  in  mid- 
summer its  leaves,  never  to  bud  again.  Thus  all  systems 
tremble  as  they  move  forward.  Plato  opened  up  a  spiritual 
philosophy  with  the  cardinal  idea  that  the  only  valuable 
thing  in  the  universe  was  the  soul.  It  had  not  advanced 
far  before  it  was  joined  by  the  idea  that  men  ought,  there- 
fore, to  pay  no  regard  to  food  or  dress,  but  should  develop 
only  their  power  of  thought. 

Christ  found  the  world -quite  full  of  asceticism  when  He 


24  REPLY  TO  IftQERSOLL'S  NE W  LECTURE. 

came,  and  long  after  Christ  it  moved  on,  growing  more 
insane  as  it  advanced.  Plotinus  and  others  assumed  that 
they  had  gotten  away  from  their  bodies,  and  were  nothing 
but  pure  souls.  This  whole  system  was  arrested  at  last  by 
the  practical  ideas  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies, and  the  doctrine  of  the  soul  was?  brought  back  to 
that  middle  ground  of  our  period.  After  a  long  journey 
through  darkness,  the  worth  of  both  the  body  and  the  mind 
emerges  into  light.  All  fair  enemies  of  Christianity  will 
remember  that  ideas,  like  men,  have  their  trials  and  sor- 
rows, and  must  be  estimated,  not  in  some  one  hour  of  their 
history,  but  in  all  their  long  and  varied  experience.  In 
this  manner  we  must  all  investigate  the  claims  of  religion. 
Like  the  politics  of  liberty,  like  the  spiritualism  of  Plato, 
it  has  had  to  move  through  a  wild  and  savage  country.  Ae; 
the  chariots  of  elegant  queens  in  the  fourteenth  century 
often  became  stalled  in  the  mud,  and  the  royal  personages 
must  descend  and  wait  for  the  slow  help  of  slow  levers  and 
slow  men,  so  the  noble  truths  of  some  bright  or  divine  mind 
often  "become  mired  when  they  attempt  to  cross  a  country 
or  an  age,  and  he  only  is  able  to  speak  wisely  of  a  religion 
who  has  kept  in  mind  the  natural  misfortunes  of  philoso- 
phies. 

It  seems  necessary,  therefore,  to  arraign  the  popular 
speaker  for  three  errors  of  judgment  or  information;  an 
error  regarding  the  importance  of  Matthew  to  the  fact  of 
Christianity;  an  error  regarding  the  commonly-received 
doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith;  an  error  of  information  as  to 
the  trials  which  befall  all  good  ideas  in  their  effort  to  gain 
foothold  in  the  world.  Let  us  note  a  fourth  shape  of  weak- 
ness in  the  long  discourse.  All  hearers  and  readers  of  the 
address  were  gratified  by  the  following  words :  "  Let  me  say, 
once  for  all,  that  to  that  great  and  serene  man  I  gladlv  pay, 
I  gladly  pay  the  homage  of  my  adoration  and  my  tears." 


BY  PROF.  SWING.  25 

The  weakness  of  the  address  here  lies  in  the  assumption 
that  that  greatness  and  serenity  which  drew  admiration 
and  tears  came  into  a  world  that  had  no  religion,  no  church, 
no  worship,  no  hope  of  another  life, — the  assumption  that 
no  causes  had  toiled  in  harmony  to  produce  such  a  person- 
age as  Jesus. 

The  Weak  Point  in  Ingersoll's  Lecture. 

If  a  public  teacher  has  iound  a  man  who  is  so  worthy  of 
a  glad  homage,  this  public  teacher  should  have  informed 
the  large  audience  assembled  what  ideas  and  practices  met 
together  in  Galilee  to  bring  about  such  a  character;  and  if 
Christ  did  not  result  from  the  gospel  of  good  food  and  good 
clothes  and  good  humor,  our  reformer  slumld  at  least  have 
confessed  that  great  men  had  often  come  into  society  by 
other  gates  than  those  of  the  tailor,  and  the  cook,  and  the 
humorist.  Great  indeed  is  the  value  of  all  those  qualities 
and  substances  and  conditions.  Food,  clothes,  houses, 
laughter,  friendship  are  all  blessings  seen  too  dimly  by 
many;  but  a  glance  at  such  a  being  as  Christ  should  in- 
stantly remind  us  that  the  heroes  who  have  drawn  "admir- 
ation and  tears"  have  had  poured  into  their  souls  other  in- 
gredients, while  in  Christ  religion  was  the  ruling  element. 

It  ought  to  be  an  impressive  fact  that  when  a  distin- 
guished enemy  of  all  religion  wishes  to  find  one  on  earth  to 
whom  he  will  yield  tearful  reverence,  he  must  seek  for  him 
and  find  him  at  the  altar  of  God,  teaching  men  to  say,  "  Our 
Father  who  art  in  Heaven."  In  the  hour  of  most  need  the 
philosophy  of  good  food  and  good  clothes  fails  our  friend, 
and  he  must  find  a  model  of  serene  greatness  in  a  man  who 
had  only  a  seamless  coat,  aad  who  slept  often  houseless 
when  even  the  foxes  had  holes  and  the  birds  their  happy 
nests. 

.Not  only  did  it  become  necessary  for  Mr.  Ingersoll  to 


36       REPLY  TO  INQBBSOLL'S  XEW  LECTURE, 

borrow  a  religious  name  upon  which  to  bestow  deep  re- 
gard, but  it  will  always  be  necessary  for  him,  after  he  has 
announced  his. philosophy  of  manhood,  to  go  outside  of  it 
to  find  the  manhood  itself.  The  doctrines  of  good  food  and 
good  clothes,  and  plenty  of  fresh  air,  and  plenty  of  liberty, 
are  valuable  to  society  after  certain  other  high  doctrines" 
have  made  the  society,  but  as  laws  for  making  a  great  man- 
hood they  are  infinitely  contemptible.  The  Roman  glut 
tons  had  plenty  of  good  food;  the  Arabs  in  the  mountains 
had  plenty  of  liberty;  the  American  Indians  always  have 
had  plenty  of  fresh  air.  The  wise  lawyer's  rules  and  regu- 
lations of  man  and  home  are  excellent  where  some  other 
rules  and  regulations,  as  in  England  and  America,  may 
have  first  made  the  man  and  the  home. 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  system  could  give  a  better  wardrobe  to 
the  man  of  Nazareth,  could  spread  for  him  a  better  feast 
than  the  one  Martha  set  before  him,  could  put,  indeed,  a 
pillow  of  down  under  the  weary  head,  but  it  could  not  first 
produce  the  Nazarene  himself.  Mr.  IngersolPs  final  phi- 
losophy can  explain  a  tailor-shop  or  a  dining-room,  but  it 
cannot  explain  the  human  race.  It  is  ignorant  as  a  child 
of  the  causes  that  have  made  all  that  is  great  in  humanity, 
and  that  will  continue  to  make. 

The  Colonel's  Cruel  Advice   Which  He  Himself  Does  Not  Follow-A  Solid 
Shot  From  the  Frofessor. 

Let  us  allude  now  to  the  fifth  error  of  the  discourse.  It 
unites  with  all  of  the  gentleman's  speeches  in  advising  the 
public  to  build  no  churches,  to  attend  no  church,  but  to 
put  into  homes  the  money  which  they  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  waste  in  so-called  houses  of  God.  This  advice  is 
hasty,  and  even  cruel,  for  many  reasons.  It  will  be  admit- 
ted that  some  centuries  did  rob  the  home  that  they  might 
build  the  temple.  And  one  can  yet  see  something  of  this 
form  of  injustice  in  our  world.  But  the  world  is  outgrow- 


BY  PROF.  SWING.  27 

ing -this  form  of  folly,  and  we  all  live  in  a  broad  West, 
where  the  country  and  village  church  rises  up  among  the 
trees  in  great  simplicity.  Complaints  tliat  we  have  applied 
to  Europe  in  the  far  past  cannot,  Ly  any  mind  that  wishes 
to  be  reasonable,  be  laid  against  the  simple  sanctuaries 
which  so  adorn  this  new  continent.  A  lecturer's  fee  for  a 
night,  a  clergyman's  fee  for  a  month,  would  make  ready 
for  use  one  of  those  village  meeting-houses,  which  would 
assemble  the  dear  children  together  for  a  generation,  that 
they  might  study  that  Man  who  elicits  from  even  infidels 
sympathetic  tears. 

Look  into  this  advice  more  deeply.  All  valuable  moral 
truths  must  be  regularly  and  faithfully  taught.  The  pri- 
vate home  is  confessed,  both  in  philosophy  and  song,  to  be 
the  most  blessed  spot  on  earth,  but  not  out  of  those  private 
dwellings  has  the  education  of  the  world  proceeded.  The 
young  and  old  have  been  compelled  by  the  laws  of  instruc- 
tion to  meet  together  in  companies  larger  than  and  quite 
different  from  the  one  which  assembles  by  tke  fireside. 
Hence  politics  has  had  its  forum  or  senate,  art  its  school 
and  gallery,  philosophy  its  porch,  and  morals  or  piety  its 
temple.  To  these  the  throng  has  repaired.  Home  has  its 
own  peculiar  virtue.  There  is  no  language  eloquent  enough 
to  describe  home.  The  song  of  home  is  destined  to  be 
immortal,  but,  after  all,  that  mighty  thing  called  society 
has  poured  out  of  quite  other  gates.  Men  assemble  to- 
gether, and  behold!  after  they  have  studied,  and  taught,  and 
learned,  mind  to  mind  and  heart  to  heart,  up  has  risen  a  fine 
art,  or  a  science,  or  a  politics,  or  a  religion. 

Our  lecturer  refused  his  own  advice;  for,  in  order  to 
teach  his  own  views,  he  had  to  seek  for  a  temple,  not  built 
for  a  dwelling-house,  but  for  a  school  and  an  arena  of  art. 
.Remanding  us  all  to  the  walls  of  our  private  houses,  and 
telling  us  to  put  our  gold  into  only  our  houses,  he  asked  us 


28  REPLY  TO  INUERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

to  postpone  obeying  the  advice  until  we  had  come  out  to 
:an  expensive  building  to  hear  from  him  the  laws  of  life  and 
salvation.  It  would  seem  that  the  dwelling-house  theory 
were  not  designed  to  apply  to  the  enemies  of  religion,  but 
•only  to  its  friends.  Persons  who  will  laugh  at  piety  may 
assemble  in  elegant  halls;  those  who  love  the  idea  of  a  God 
and  a  heaven  should  cease  to  meet  in  churches  or  hulls,  and 
should  build  up  the  walls  of  their  homes! 

The  Grand  Architecture  of  "  Home  "—An  Eloquent  Peroration. 

Assuming  that  the  orator  is  right  his  eulogy  of  the  place 
called  home,  assuming  that  he  cannot  plant  one  flower  too 
many  by  the  door  or  window  or  wake  up  too  much  joy  or 
laughter  and  music  within,  yet  we  dare  not  be  ignorant  of 
the  fact  that  no  such  home  has  come  or  can  come  to  a  nation 
that  has  no  God  and  no  temple  of  hymn  and  incense. 
Home  is  not  an  isolated  fact,  but  it  is  a  result.  The  arts 
and  the  sciences,  all  the  learning  and  wisdom  of  the  world 
have  made  their  contributions  toward  the  beautiful  little 
result  called  home. 

There  is  not  a  farmhouse  or  a  palace  in  England,  not  a 
cottage  in  New  England,  not  a  mansion  along  the  Hudson, 
or  upon  the  avenue  of  any  city  that  has  not  resulted  from 
a  blending  together  of  all  past  learning,  and  taste,  and 
morals,  and  piety.  Could  you  dissect  the  idea  of  home  and 
find  the  nerves  of  its  structure,  it  would  be  found  that 
thoughts  of  God  and  of  a  future  life,  which  will  gather  to- 
gether all  those  scattered  here,  form  a  strange  and  tender 
part  of  this  house  where  the  parents  arid  the  children  meet 
and  part.  Atheists  come  upon  our  homes  already  built; 
but  they  neglect  to  ask,  they  dare  not  ask,  what  built  them? 
Must  we  tell  them  that  beneath  the  homes  of  France,  of 
Germany,  of  England,  of  America,  there  is  lying  a  civili- 
zation made  tender  by  all  the  broad  and  deep  teachings  or 


BY  PROF.  SWING.  29 

religion?  Food,  and  furniture,  and  laughter,  and  joy  did 
not  make  these  blessed  abodes  of  man.  The  atheist  can 
decorate  these  homes,  but  he  did  not  make  them.  Beneath 
them  is  a  belief  in  God,  a  deep  pathos  of  life  and  death, 
•and  deep  hope  in  a  life  to  come  after  the  earthly  house  of 
encampment  has  been  dissolved. 

Into  these  walls  where  we  all  live  pass,  as  component 
parts,  the  tears  and  prayers  of  saints  and  martyrs.  -  The 
songs  and  hymns  of  our  fathers  are  more  significant  ele- 
ments than  the  brick,  and  wood,  and  marble;  the  frequent 
trips  of  the  children  to  the  sanctuary  across  the  open  field 
or  along  the  crowded  street  have,  in  building  up  the  mod- 
ern home,  surpassed  the  architect  and  the  mason.  Atheism 
can  live  happily  in  a  home  which  hands  more  divine  have 
fabricated  from  the  world's  rich  dust. 


OIF  DDR. 


Points  Wherein  the  Doctor  and  Colonel  Agree  and  Differ— A  Fair  and 
Candid  Rejoinder. 

[As  the  Pulpit  of  the  Centenary  Church  was  supplied  by  a  visiting  candidate;, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  contributed  the  following  letter  :] 

I  have  no  desire  to  differ  from  Col.  Ingersoll  where  it  ia 
possible  for  us  to  agree.  The  disposition  to  antagonize — 
to  seek  to  find  points  of  difference,  rather  than  points  of 
agreement,  has,  perhaps,  often  led  both  parties  in  religious 
debates  to  magnify  each  other's  real  or  supposed  errors. 
We  should  rather  seek  to  know  as  far  as  we  may  the  exact 
truth,  and  give  it  full  credit  wherever  found.  This  seems 
to  be  the  spirit  in  which  the  lecturer  sought  to  stand  before 
his  great  congregation.  I  would  reciprocate  this  as  fully 
as  I  can,  and  say,  "  Let  us  see  wherein  we  can  agree?"  Let 
us  say  that  the  time  for  meditation  has  arrived  in  the  pro- 
found questions  of  thought;  not  of  compromise  of  principle 
or  fact,  but  of  harmony  where  harmony  is  possible.  Such 
a  spirit  will  do  much  to  soften  the  severity  of  discussions, 
and  it  will  be  a  mental  and  moral  help  to  all  parties. 

And  first,  in  reference  to  Col.  Ingersoll's  plea  for  the 
right  and  the  duty  of  all  to  think  and  to  reason.  He  says: 
"  I  belong  to  the  republic  of  intellectual  liberty,  and  only 
those  are  good  citizens  of  that  republic  who  depend  upon 
reason  and  upon  persuasion,  and  only  those  are  traitors  who 
resort  to-  brute  force."  In  this  we  can  agree.  I  belong  to 
the  same,  and  I  indorse  that  statement.  1  agree  with  him 
also  in  not  thinking  that  "  people  who  disagree  with  me  are 

31 


32  REPLY  TO  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE. 

bad  people,"  and  that  mankind  are  generally  "  reasonably 
honest;"  and  that  most  "ministers  are  endeavoring  to  make 
this  world  better."  I  agree  with  him  when  Ite  claims  the 
right  to  think,  and  for  the  two  reasons  that  "  I  like,  too,  and 
arid  I  can't  help  it."  I  like  to  think,  and  I  can't  help  it; 
and  will  add,  that  I  would  not  "help  it"  ii  I  could."  But 
here  we  should  distinguish  between  proper  freedom  to 
think,  and  what  is  loosely  called  "  free  thought."  Freedom 
to  think  should  be  the  right  of  all;  but  there  is  not,  and 
there  cannot  be, any  such  thing  as  "free  thought,"  unless  it 
is  in  a  bad  sense.  And  for  this  reason,  that  all  thought  is 
conditioned,  first,  by  the  laws  of  thought;  and  secondly,  by 
the  facts,  and  the  things  about  which  we  think.  All  normal 
mental  freedom  must  submit  to  these  natural  limitations. 
And  in  this  I  think  Mr.  Ingersoll  will  fully  agree  with  me. 

In  the  second  place,  I  agree  with  much  that  the  Colonel 
has  to  say*  about  the  good  that  is  in  the  Christian  religion, 
lie  says:  "There  are  many  good  things  about  it.  I  be- 
lieve that.  He  says:  "I  will  never  attack  anything  that  I 
believe  to  be  good,  and  will  never  fail  to  attack  anything  I 
honestly  believe  to  be  wrong."  In  this  we  can  agree,  also. 
I  will  join  hands  with  the  Colonel  in  defending  what  I 
believe  to  be  right,  and  in  opposing  what  I  believe  to  be 
wrong.  But  I  cannot  agree  with  him  when,  in  the  next 
sentence,  he  says: 

We  have,  I  say,  what  they  call  the  Christian  religion,  and,  I  find 
just  in  proportion  that  nations  have  been  religious,  just  in  the 
proportion  they  have  gone  back  to  barbarism.  I  find  that  Spain, 
I'ortuetal,  Italy  are  the  three  worst  nations  in  Europe.  I  find  that 
the  nation  nearest  infidel  is  the  most  prosperous — France. 

I  think  the  fairness  in  debate  for  which  the  Colonel 
claims  to  stand,  should  have  led  him  to  discriminate  be- 
tween religion  arid  superstition,  or  the  abuse  of  religion. 
He  is  a  friend  of  liberty,  but  he  would  not  think  it  fair  to 
charge  liberty  with  all  the  abuses  and  the  wrongs  wrought 


BY  DR.  THOMAS.  ;>>3 

in  the  name  of  liberty.  The  Colonel  indorses  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  as  to  purity  of  heart,  and  mercy,  and  justice,  and 
forgiveness.  We  certainly  gather  from  his  lecture  that  he 
believes  these  to  be  the  essence,  the  very  spirit  of  religion, 
and  he  certainly  would  not  claim  that  the  more  a  nation 
had  of  these,  the  worse  it  would  be;  and,  if  not,  it  is  hardly 
iair  to  charge  the  bad  state  of  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Italy  to 
religion.  Why  not  say  that  in  those  countries  the  spirit 
of  the  teachings  of  true  religion  has  been  corrupted  and 
turned  to  base  purposes. 

In  the  third  place,  I  can  agree  with  much  that  the  lec- 
turer says  about  Christ.  I  was  glad  to  read  his  clear, 
ananly  words,  when  he  said : 

And  let  me  say  here,  once  for  all,  that*  for  the  man  Christ  I  have 
infinite  respect.  Let  me  say,  once  for  all,  that  the  place  where 
man  has  died  for  man  is  holy  ground ;  and  let  me  say,  once  for  all, 
to  that  great  and  serene  man  I  gladly  pay  the  homage  of  my  ad- 
miration and  my  tears.  He  was  a  reformer  in  His  day.  He  was 
an  infidel  in  His  time.  He  was  regarded  as  a  blasphemer,  and  His 
life  was  destroyed  by  hypocrites,  who  have,  in  all  ages,  done  what 
they  could  to  'trample  freedom  out  of  the  human  mind.  Had  I 
lived  at  that  time  I  would  have  been  his  friend,  and  should  He 
come  again,  He  would  not  find  a  better  friend  than  I  will  be. 

Ingersoll's  New  Departure— What  the  Doctor  says  About  it. 

This  seems  to  be  a  new  departure,  or  at  least  a  step  be- 
yond where  the  Colonel  has  taken  his  stand  in  previous 
lectures ;  though  I  do  not  recall  a  single  instance  where  }•  •>, 
has  said  anything  against  the  life  of  Christ — that  is,  Hi?: 
lite  as  a  man.  My  heart  is  with  him  in  those  noble  senti. 
ments.  I  am  glad  he  spoke  so  freely  and  so  sincerely.  "Wit! 
him  I  feel  that  the  "  place  where  man  dies  for  man  is  hoi;- 
ground;"  and  with  him  I  pay  .to  that  "serene  man  th< 
homage  and  the  admiration  of  my  tears."  I  think  with 
the  Colonel,  also,,  that  Jesus  was  regarded  by  the  Church  of 
that  day  as  an  "infidel "  and  a  "  blasphemer,"  and  that  lie 

3 


34  REPLY  lt>  INUERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

was  put  to  death  by  those  who  claimed  to  be  the  only  relig- 
ions people  of  the  time,  and  who  looked  upon  everybody 
who  did  not  accept  their  teachings  and  mode  of  life  as  sinners. 
But  then  i  have  to  get  the  facts  of  that  great  and  good  life 
from  the  very  books  of  the  !tfew  Testament  that  the 
Colonel  labored  so  hard  to  cast  suspicion  upon  as  being  un- 
reliable, and  not  written  till  "  hundreds  of  years  after," 
and  as  coining  from  confused  and  conflicting  manuscripts. 
Speaking  further  of  Christ,  the  lecturer  says: 

For  the  theological  creation  I  have  a  different  feeling.  If  He 
was,  in  fact,  God,  He  knew  there  was  no  such  thing  as  death.  He 
knew  that  what  we  call  death  was  but  the  eternal  opening  of  the 
golden  gates  of  everlasting  joy;  and  that  it  took  no  heroism  to 
face  a  death  that  was  simply  eternal  life. 

I  will  admit  that  some  of  the  "theological"  conceptions 
of  Christ  may  have  served  to  confuse  the  mind ;  but  then, 
in  the  calmest  exercise  of  that  very  reason  for  which  my 
excellent  friend  makes  so  strong  a  plea,  I  am  compelled  to 
think  that  there  was  in  that  life  something  more  than 
human.  Approach  it  where  you  will;  touch  it  at  any  point 
from  the  "  conception"  to  the  last  scenes  of  the  cross,  and 
the  resurrection,  and  the  ascension,  and  it  all  seems  to  be 
of  a  piece;  it  is  consistent  with  itself  throughout;  it  moves 
along  on  its  own  unique  and  majestic  plane.  We  have  the 
picture  before  us;  we  have  the  marvelous  facts;  and  for  me 
it  is  easier — a  less  strain  upon  the  reason — to  accept  the 
account  as  given;  to  accept  the,  to  us,  supernatural,  in  that 
life,  than  to  account  for  it  in  any  other  way.  How  could 
the  unlettered  disciples — plain,  common  men — have  cre- 
ated such  a  character?  How  could  such  marvelous  results 
have  flown  from  the  life  of  one  who  was  only  a  man? 
Wiser  and  better  than  other  men,  but  yet  onlv  a  man. 
I  am  in  worse  mental  trouble  when  I  attempt  to  put 
away  the  divine,  the  supernatural  in  Christ,  and  the 


B7  7)R  THOMAS,  85 

Scriptures  and  i^ilgion,  than  wLen  I  accept  it,  With 
me  it  is  a  way  out  of  difficulty,  rather  than  r,  way  into 
difficulty;  and  "I  gladly  pay  the  homage  or  my  admi- 
ration and  tears"  to  Him  not  only  as  a  "  serene  man,"  but 
to  that  higher  being  who  is  the  Son  of  God,  as  well  as  the 
Son  of  Man.  To  me  He  is  that  being  brought  into  exist- 
ence by  a  special,  or  an  exceptional,  creation,  arid  in  whom 
God  is  revealed  to  the  world.  And  this  makes  it  all  the 
more  easy  for  me  to  understand  His  deep  and  tender  sym- 
pathy— His  tears,  His  prayers,  His  agony  in  the  garden 
and  on  the  cross.  As  a  man,  Jesus  had  the  susceptibilities 
to  pain,  and  in  a  measure,  to  fear,  common  tc  men.  As 
"  Immanuel,"  as  God  with  us,  there  was  an  upper  and 
higher  sweep  to  his  whole  life;  and  it  was  the  dwelling  of 
this  divine  nature  within  him  that  so  quickened  and  exalted 
all  his  sensibilities  and  made  possible  a  degree  of  suffering 
to  us  perhaps  unknown. 

I  think  that  when  we  enter  into  the  real  life  of  Christ, 
His  outward  sufferings  were  but  the  smallest  part;  the 
mere  symbol;  the  "flag  of  distress"  thrown  out  to  arrest 
our  coarse  sense.  The  real  agony  was  within.  It  was  the 
Buffering  of  love — love  slighted  and  rejected;  love  scorned 
and  crucified  by  those  He  came  to  save.  It  was  the  burden 
of  the  cold,  cruel  world  put  upon  Him  in  the  last  hours  of 
a  life  that  had  been  only  tender  and  merciful  to  all.  He 
feared  not  "  the  change  we  call  death."  To  Him  there  was 
no  "  death;"  and  yet  a  horror  worse  than  any  mere  death 
gathered  about  that  awful  hour. 

The  Teachings  of  Christ  Emphasized -Character  rather  than  Dogma. 

A  word  in  the  fourth  place,  about  Christ's  teachings,  as 
to  what  man  must  do  to  be  saved.  I  can  agree  with  Col. 
Ingersoll  that  these  are  reliable — whenever  or  by  whoever 
written.  And  I  believe  with  him  that  Christ  put  emphasis 


36  REPLY  TO  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

upon  character  rather  than  upon  dogma;  upon  what  we  are 
rather  than  what  wre  profess  or  what,  in  a  technical  sense, 
we  believe.  Of  course,  great  beliefs  must  underlie 
the  very  principles  of  purity  and  mercy  and  justice 
that  He  taught.  I  must  believe  that  the  pure  and  merciful 
and  just  will  be  saved.  They  are  saved  already;  lor  to  have 
such  qualities  is  to  have  salvation.  It  may  not,  indeed,  be 
a  "  theological"  or  a  "  regulation"  salvation — that  h  a  sal- 
vation according  to  a  "creed;"  but  it  is  what  is  far  better; 
it  is  salvation,  in  fact.  And  I  agree  with  the  Colonel  in  the 
absurdity  of  the  old  Athanasian  creed,  over  which  he  had 
so  much  fun,  when  it  says  that  whosoever  will  be  saved 
"first  of  all  it  is  necessary  to  hold  the  Catholic  faith."  and 
then  goes  on  to  define  that  faith  in  terms,  the  meaning  of 
which  only  those  who  have  made  of  theology  a  profound 
study  can  have  the  most  distant  conception;  and  then  closes 
up  by  saying  that  "  except  one  do  thus  believe  he  shall 
perish  everlastingly."  That  was  an  error  of  the  creed-mak- 
ing age.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  does  not  retain 
that  creed,  and  the  Church  of  England  holds  it  only  be- 
cause it  does  not  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  An  effort  was 
made  some  years  ago  in  England  to  lighten  the  formal 
terms  of  subscription,  but  it  failed. 

But  I  should  think  the  Colonel  did  not  get  all  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ  in  reference  to  salvation;  not  all  of  Matthew, 
even.  Jesus  taught  not  only  the  inner  principles  of  salva- 
tion as  it  is  found  in  character,  but  lie  taught  that  men 
should  pray;  that  they  should  deny  themselves  and  take  up 
the  cross  and  follow  Him.  He  taught  that  men  should  re- 
pent and  be  converted.  But  still,  I  agree  with  the  lecturer 
that  we  should  put  more  stress  upon  principles  and  con- 
duct, and  less  upon  creeds,  and  I  will  join  him  in  pressing 
these  things  upon  the  Church  and  upon  the  world. 

It  was  not  the  purpose  of  this  paper  (begun  at  9  o'clock 


BY  DR.  THOMAS.  37 

on  Saturday  evening,  and  now  about  finished  before  11)  to 
review  in  any  full  sense  this  long  lecture,  but  rather  to  look 
at  some  things  in  which  we  can  agree;  and  to  .suggest  some 
points  on  which  my  own  faith  goes  beyond.  There  are 
some  very  palpable,  even  remarkable  errors,  or  mistakes., 
in  statement  that  I  have  no  doubt  some  of  our  clergy  will 
find  pleasure  in  exposing.  And  yet  there  are  many  things 
in  it  that  cannot  fail  to  make  an  impression  upon  many 
who  have  heretofore  regarded  the  Colonel's  lectures  as  only 
blasphemous.  And  I  want  to  say  to  my  friend  that  I 
think  there  is  one  point  in  which  he  should  be  more 
careful.  I  like  all  he  says  about  liberty,  and  not  causing 
pain  to  others.  But  when  I  read  his  lectures — and  I  have 
read  them  all — I  am  compelled  to  feel  that  he  is  not  suffi- 
ciently mindful  of  the  feelings  of  many  good  people  who 
differ  from  him  on  matters  of  belief.  lie  ought  to  practice 
in  this  respect  what  he  preaches. 

And  he  will  not  blame  me  for  another  word,  and  that  is? 
with  so  many  manly  utterances  for  honesty,  and  fairness 
he  should  be  careful  not  to  permit  his  love  of  fun,  and  the 
laughter  and  applause  of  the  people  who  hear,  to  lead  him 
to  indulge  in  unjust  caricatures  of  things  sacred,  or  to  make 
unfair  statements  for  the  sake  of  gaining  a  point.  I  think 
his  denunciation  of  the  old  and  terrible  ideas  of  endless 
punishment,  and  the  gross  and  shocking  views  that  have 
been  sometimes  held  concerning  a  penal  atonement,  are  not 
wholly  uncalled  for.  I  fear  the  teachers  of  religion  have  in 
some  things  made  an  occasion  for  some  of  his  lectures ;  but 
even  admitting  all  this,  there  is  still  a  law  of  the  congruous, 
a  sense  of  the  fitting,  or  of  what  is  proper  in  the  discus- 
sion of  themes  that  have  been  in  all  ages  and  literature 
accounted  sacred.  Less  extravagance,  more  care  in  state- 
ment, and  fairness  in  reason,  and  with  all  more  reverence, 
is  what  our  lecturer  needs  to  cultivate. 


•".••v.-n.in:  >v-,   .,1 


OIF1 


The  Scope  of  the  Lecture,  and  Not  the  Lecturer,  Under  Consideration— The 
Issue-  Faith  and  Works. 

It  has,  I  believe,  been  intimated  by  Col.  Robert  G.  In- 
gersDll  that  his  clerical  critics  are  usually  more  inclined  to 
consider  him  personally  than  the  merits  of  his  ideas,  and 
he  justly  resents  so  grave  a  departure  from  the  amenities 
of  debate.  The  fault  complained  of  cannot  be  too  severely 
condemned,  for  it  is  certain  when  controversies  degenerate 
into  attacks  on  individuals  who  advocate  objectionable 
views,  and  are  not  directed  against  the  views  themselves,  an 
amount  of  prejudice  is  engendered  fatal  to  the  discovery  or 
defense  of  truth.  Into  so  serious  an  error  I  shall  take  care 
not  to  fall. 

Being  a  member  of  that  unfortunate  body,  of  whom 
Jeremy  Taylor,  so  approvingly  quoted  by  Col.  Ingersoll, 
wrote  "  were  as  much  to  be  rooted  out  as  anything  that  was 
the  greatest  pest  and  nuisance  on  earth,"  but  who,  if  Ban. 
croft  and  Lecky  are  to  be  credited,  have  been  from  the  be- 
ginning the  steadfast  friends  ot  unlimited  freedom  of 
thought  and  of  speech,  I  have  it  not  in  my  nature  to  call  in 
question  the  honesty  of  any  man's  opinions,  or  to  deny  his 
right  to  disseminate  them  as  widely  as  he  can.  Indeed,  I 
am  related  to  a  people  who  have  for  so  long  a  time  been  in 
the  minority,  and  who  have  been  compelled  to  suffer  so- 
much  for  their  antagonism  to  the  tyranny  of  botli  church 
and  state,  that  I  can  hardly  refrain  from  a  kind  of  admir- 
ing sympathy  with  iconoclasts,  even  when  their  sturdy 


40  RE  PL  P  TO  IHQERSOLLS  NE  W  LECTURE 

blows  are  directed  against  my  own  most  cherished  convic- 

o  *• 

tions.  Influenced  by  such  feelings,  you  will  not  be  sur- 
prised if,  in  reviewing  some  portions  of  Col.  Ingersoll's 
lectnre,  I  confine  myself  strictly  to  their  representations, 
and  avoid  unnecessary  reference  to  the  lecturer  himself. 

The  avowed  design  of  the  lecture  alluded  to  was  to 
answer  the  all-important  question:  ""What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved?"  a  question  that  has  engaged  the  thought  of  many 
burdened  generations,  and  which  only  irreverent  shallow- 
ness  would  treat  with  laughter  and  derision;  and  in  furnish- 
ing a  reply,  it  was  claimed  that  orthodox  Christians  teach 
"the  justification  of  the  sinner  by  faith  alone;  not  any 
words,  just  faith — believing  something  you  do  not  under- 
stand." This  statement  is  in  various  ways  repeated  in  the 
published  reports  of  the  discussion.  For  instance,  when 
the  passage  is  quoted  in  which  the  Lord  is  represented  as 
judging,  the  following  comment  appears  as  a  fair  account 
of  what  is  currently  taught :  " '  He  shall  reward  every 
man'  —  to  the  church  he  belongs  to?  No.  T®  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  was  baptized?  No.  According  to  liis 
creed?  No.  'He  shall  reward  every  man  according  to  his 
works,'"  the  impression  conveyed  being  that  we  advocate 
what  is  here  so  emphatically  negatived. 

Similar  queries  are  propounded  in  connection  with  our 
Savior's  interview  with  Zaccheus,  and  with  the  same  end  in 
view;  and  after  a  dissertation  on  the  Romish  creed,  it  is 
asserted,  "  In  order  to  be  saved  it  is  necessary  to  believe 
this.  •  What  a  mercy  it  is  that  man  can  get  to  heaven  with- 
out understanding  it."  All  denominations  are  classed 
together  as  conditioning  salvation  on  the  reception  of  some 
such  doctrinal  formula,  and  On  this  assumption  are  made 
the  subjects  of  infinite  merriment.  Unquestionably  the 
Tridentine  Decrees  are  fairly  open  to  criticism,  and  un- 
doubtedly some  old  Protestant  confessions  are  not  clear  of 


BY  DP.  LOPdMER.  41 

the  error  charged  against  them;  but  though  this  must  be 
conceded,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  pulpit  of  the  present 
makes  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  soul  depend  on  intellectual 
belief.  If  it  ever  did  so,  it  has  long  since  found  out  its 
mistake. 

Theology  Progressive— Creeds,  Faith,  Etc. 

Theology,  -like  any  other  science,  is  far  from  being  per- 
fect ;  progress  has  distinguished  it,  and  must  continue  to 
do  so.  In  the  course  of  its  advancement  it  has  come  to  be 
more  fully  recognized  that  whatever  saving  faith  may  mean, 
it  does  not  involve  subscription  to  a  creed,  however  ortho- 
dox. A  man  may  hold  to  the  "  five  points  "  and  to  even  as 
many  more  "  points "  as  he  pleases,  and  yet  be  a  stranger 
to  God's  grace.  He  may  even  contend  sincerely  for  the 
verbal  inspiration  of  scripture,  and  still  have  no  assurance 
of  Divine  acceptance.  "Devils  believe  and  tremble;"  and 
the  same  is  true  of  men.  Creeds  have  their  place.  They 
summarize  what  is  held  by  a  particular  body  of  disciples; 
they  form  convenient  compendiums  for  reference,  and  they 
impart  definiteness  to  an  organization,  but  they  have  no 
more  efficiency  in  the  salvation  of  a  soul  than  a  prescrip- 
tion has  in  the  healing  of  a  body.  A  prescription  may 
guide  an  invalid  to  the  means  of  health,  and  a  confession 
of  faith  may  accurately  point  out  the  way  of  everlasting 
life;  but  if  the  prescription  is  swallowed  instead  of  the 
remedy,  or  the  confession  is  relied  on  instead  of  the  Savior, 
the  result  in  the  one  case  will  be  about  as  vain  as  the  other. 
Consequently  it  is  mere  waste  of  time  and  energy  to  labor 
to  disprove,  what  is  far  from  being  generally  held,  if  held 
at  all  in  Protestant  circles,  that  intellectual  belief  is  indis- 
pensable to  the  eternal  well-being  of  the  soul. 

In  rejecting  this  answer  to  the  great  inquiry,  one  of  two- 
others  is  suggested:  the  first  as  embodying  the  alleged  opin- 


42  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLVS  NEW  LECTURE, 

ions  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke ;  the  second  as  expressing 
the  conviction  of  the  lecturer  himself.  Several  texts  are  col- 
lated from  the  whole  writings  of  these  three  Evangelists  to 
sustain  the  view  that  they  predicated  salvation  exclusively  of 
works,  and  every  utterance  of  theirs  that  seems  to  point  to 
anything  else  is  repudiated  as  an  interpolation.  Of  the 
warrant  for  discriminating  in  this  manner  between  the 
words  of  the  same  testimony  I  shall  speak  by  and  by ;  at 
present  I  am  only  concerned  to  remind  you  of  the  unmeas- 
ured approval  which  the  lecture  under  consideration  lavishes 
on  this  interpretation. 

We  have,  tor  instance,  this  commendation  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount:  "If  you  will  forgive  men  that  trespass 
against  you,  God  will  forgive  your  trespasses  against  him. 
I  accept,  and  I  never  will  ask  any  God  to  treat  me  better 
than  I  treat  my  fellow-men.  There's  a  square  promise. 
There's  a  contract — and  it  must  of  necessity  be  true.  No 
God  could  afford  to  damn  a  forgiving  man."  Then,  after 
the  text:  "He  shall  reward  every  man  according  to  his 
works,"  the  exclamation  follows:  ''Good!  I  subscribe  to 
thf.t  doctrine."  Subsequently  the  rule  of  judgment,  that  is 
mentioned  in  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Matthew,  elicits 
this  fervent  eulogy;  "I  tell  you  to-night  that  God  will 
not  punish  with  eternal  thirst  the  man  who  has  put  a  cup 
of  cold  water  to  the  lips  of  his  neighbor;  God  will  not  allow 
to  live  in  the  eternal  nakedness  of  pain  the  man  who  has 
clothed  others.  For  instance:  Here  is  a  shipwreck,  and 
here  is  some  brave  sailor,  who  stands  aside  to  let  a  woman 
that  he  never  saw  before  take  his  place  in  a  boat.  He  stands 
there  great  and  serene  as  the  wide  sea,  and  he  goes  down. 
Do  you  tell  me  there  is  any  God  who  will  push  the  boat 
from  the  shore  of  eternal  life  when  that  man  wishes  to  step 
in?  Do  you  tell  me  that  God  can  be  unpitving  to  the  piti- 
ful; that  Hecan  be  unforgiving  to  the  forgiving?  I  deny  it. 


BY  DR.  LORIMER.  43 

And  from  the  aspersions  of  the  pulpit  I  seeks  to  rescue  the 
reputation  of  the  Deity." 

Ingersoll's  Gospel  under   the  Doctor's  Microscope  Shows  a  Fatal  Contradic- 
tion -God  Forgives,  but  "  Bob  "is  for  "  Inexorable  Justice"— The 
Colonel  in  Fact  an  Extreme   Calvanist. 

it  is  my  turn  to  say,  "Good!"  but  how  does  this  firm 
approval  of  what  is  claimed  to  be  the  apostolic  scheme  of 
salvation  comport  with  the  lecturer's  personal  convictions 
on  the  same  subject  ?  His  own  position  is  diametrically 
opposed  to  what  he  has  so  elegantly  extolled.  Here  it  is  in 
his  own  words :  "  I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  justice, — that 
we  must  reap  what  we  sow.  I  do  not  believe  in  forgive- 
ness. If  I  rob  Mr.  Smith,  and  God  forgives  me,  how  does 
that  help  Smith  ?  If  I  by  slander  cover  some  poor  girl  with 
the  leprosy  of  some  imputed  crime,  and  she  withers  away 
like  a  blighted  flower,  and  afterward  I  get  forgiveness,  how 
does  that  help  her?  If  there  is  another  world,  we  have  got 
to  settle.  *  *  *  For  every  crime  you  commit  you  must 
answer  to  yourself  and  to  the  one  you  injure.  And  if 'you 
have  ever  clothed  another  with  unhappiness  as  with  a  gar- 
ment of  pain,  you  will  never  be  quite  as  happy  as  though 
you  hadn't  done  that  thing.  No  forgiveness,  eternal,  inex- 
orable, everlasting  justice — that  is  what  I  believe  in."  Here 
is  a  Draconian  evangel  with  a  vengeance! 

In  what  essential  respect  does  this  differ  from  the  most 
extreme  and  rigid  Calvinism.  If  one  is  an  upper  mill- 
stone, the  other  is  the  nether;  if  one  is  a  land-slide,  the 
other  is  an  earthquake;  if  the  one  is  hopelessness,  the  other 
is  despair;  if  the  one  is  blackness,  the  other  is  starless 
night;  if  the  one  is  a  shroud,  the  other  is  a  coffin,  and  if  the 
one  is  a  grave,  the  other  is  a  charnel-house.  I  had  thought 
from  what  had  so  earnestly  been  commended  by  the  lecture, 
that  there  must  be  some  healing  balm  in  charity,  some 
purifying  efflorescence  in  pity,  some  sweetening  aroma  in 


44  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NE  W  LECTURE, 

patient  gentleness,  and  some  heavenly  grace  and  beauty  in 
the  spirit  of  forgiveness ;  but  no;  if  the  only  real  and  divine 
thing  in  the  universe  is  "eternal,  inexorable,  everlasting 
justice,"  these  qualities  are  emptied  of  their  significance 
and  worth;  yea,  they  must  be  regarded  as  positive  evils, 
running  counter  as  they  do  to  the  absolute  sovereignty  of 
merciless  retribution,  and  society  should  convert  itself  into 
an  organized  feud,  and  its  people  into  ravening  wolves.  If 
this  latest  gospel  is  true,  then  the  sailor  would  not  be  saved 
on  account  of  the  heroism  so  beautifully  described  unless 
throughout  his  life  he  had  been  perfectly  blameless  in  the 
dealings  with  others ;  nor  could  the  dying  thief  have  been 
saved  "  because  he  "pitied  innocence  suffering  on  the  cross," 
though  we  are  assured  that  he  was  by  the  lecturer,  as  he 
certainly  had  committed  wrong  against  his  fellow-beings. 
And  if  it  is  true  that  there  is  nothing  to  be  looked  for  in 
the  future  "but  inexorable,  everlasting  justice,"  then  it  is 
not  true  "that  God  cannot  afford  to  damn  any  man  capable 
of  pitying  anyone." 
lagersoll  Does  Not  Answer  the  Question,  "  What  Host  We  Do  to  Be  Saved  1" 

Which  of  these  two  solutions  of  the  momentous  problem 
are  we  to  regard  as  entitled  to  credence?  Which  shall  we 
adopt  ?  They  cannot  both  be  reasonable  and  worthy  of  all 
acceptation,  for  they  are  destructive  of  each  other.  If  the 
first  be  true,  the  second  is  not;  and  if  the  second  is,  then 
there  is  no  place  for  the  just.  The  encampment  of  forgive- 
ness cannot  withstand  the  stern  fortress  of  unfaltering  jus- 
tice: and  the  breath  of  all-loving  mercy  is  fatal  to  the  sign 
of  unapproachable  Nemesis.  Again,  I  ask,  which  theory 
shall  we  believe?  One  or  the  other,  or  neither?  Obviously 
the  lecture  does  not  help  us  to  a  decision}  for  its  glaring 
contradictions  only  make  certain  that  its  clever  author  is 
s.~-»t  oJear  in  his  own  mind  as  to  what  humanity  must  do  to 


BY  DR.  LORIMER.  43 

be  saved,  and  that  we  must  look  elsewhere  for  a  satisfactory 
answer.  And  to  whom  shall  we  look  for  the  much  needed 
light  if  not  to  Christ  ?  If  not  to  that  being  for  whom  the 
lecturer  expresses  such  high  regard  that  he  is  ready  to  pay 
him  the  tribute  of  his  "  admiration  and  his  tears."  As  it  is 
conceded  that  He  should  inspire  us  with  "infinite  respect," 
and  admitted  that  He  in  some  sense  "died  for  man,"  we 
cannot  surely  do  better  than  lay  to  heart,  and  receive  as 
final  His  doctrine  regarding  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 

But  how  shall  we  ascertain  what  He  taught?  Permit 
me  to  reply,  by  asking  another  question,  how  does  Col.  In- 
gersoll  know  that  Jesus  was  a  "  great  and  serene  man,''  one 
deserving  the  confidence  of  his  friendship,  and  "  the  ad- 
miration of  his  tears?"  We  are  reminded  that  He  never 
directed  anything  to  be  written,  and  never  wrote  anything 
Himself,  except  some  words  in  the  sand.  From  whence 
then  comes  the  information  which  enables  the  lecturer  to 
form  so  high  an  estimate  of  His  character?  Evidently  it 
is  derived  from  the  !N"ew  Testament,  for  there  are  no  other 
documents  to  which  an  appeal  can  be  carried.  If  then  it 
is  sufficiently  reliable  to  warrant  us  in  accepting  its  por- 
traiture of  Christ,  it  may  certainly  be  trusted  when  it 
undertakes  to  set  before  us  the  doctrine  that  He  preached. 

Authenticity  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  at  this  point  to  suggest  a  few  addi- 
tional thoughts  bearing  on  the  authenticity  of  this  book. 
The  statement  that  "  it  was  not  written  for  hundreds  of 
years  after  the  Apostles  were  dust"  is  utterly  devoid  of 
proof.  Ty  the  gospels  were  in  circulation  by  the  close  of 
the  first  century  is  the  belief  of  the  world's  most  eminent 
scholars,  a  belief  abundantly  confirmed  by  Irenceus,  Paplas, 
Tertullian,  and  Origen.  The  assertion  that  they  were  orig- 
inally written  in  Hebrew,  and  that,  as  ths  comes  are  all  ia 


4C  RE  PL  Y  TO  INGERSOLL  3  NE  W  LECTURE, 

Greek,  a  language  which  it  is  assumed  the  disciples  did  not 
understand,  no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  their  reported 
authorship,  is  gratuitous  and  uiitr  us  worthy.  Thoughtful 
rationalists,  who  have  studied  this  subject  carefully,  hesitate 
to  venture  on  such  untenable  ground.  According  to  the 
best  authorities,  in  our  Lord's  day  the  Greek  language  was 
current  in  Palestine;  and  it  is  needless  to  say  that  such 
writers  as  Lightfoot,  Alford,  De  Wette,  and  Lueke  have 
assigned  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  believing  that  the 
gospels  were  the  work  of  the  men  to  whom  they  are  com- 
monly ascribed.  But  even  were  there  serious  doubts  upon 
this  point,  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  it  is  simply 
incredible  that  centuries  alter  Christ  a  company  of  unknown 
men  should  have  been  able  to  impose  on  the  churches  as 
apostolic,  writings  that  radically  differed  from  the  doctrine 
fixed  and  accepted  among  them;  and  if  they  are  in  substan- 
tial agreement,  as  undoubtedly  they  are,  then,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  this  discussion,  we  may  accept  with  confidence 
their  report  ot  what  Christ  taught  concerning  the  salvation 
of  the  soul.  And  if  we  attach  to  them  enough  importance 
to  call  them  to  the  witness-stand  at  all,  we  are  bound  to 
receive  their  whole  testimony,  and  not  to  garble  it  to  suit 
our  own  views. 

To  reject  every  statement  that  mitigates  against  our 
opinions  as  interpolations,  or  to  discriminate  between  wit- 
nesses whose  claims  on  our  attention  are  equally  valid,  sim- 
ply because  one  seems  to  be  more  pronounced  against  us 
than  the  others,  only  betrays  a  determination  to  make  good 
a  position  at  any  hazard.  Such  a  course  is  illogical  and 
unjustifiable.  For  it  to  be  pursued  in  any  other  investiga- 
tion than  that  of  religion,  would  expose  its  author  to  cen- 
sure and  condemnation.  If  the  Evangelists  are  entirely 
untrustworthy,  do  not  appeal  to  them  at  all;  but  if  you  are 
going:  to  admit  their  testimony,  admit  the  whole  of  it;  any 


SY  DR.  LORIMER.  47 

other  course  is  not  only  inconsistent,  it  will  prove  inconclu- 
sive as  well. 

The  Gospel  Plan  of  Salvation. 

Believing,  then,  that  we  have  in  this  volume  a  faithful 
transcript  of  the  Savior's  teachings,  let  us  draw  near  to  it, 
earnestly  inquiring,  "What  must  we  do  to  be  saved?" 
The  text,  which  I  have  chosen  on  which  to  rest  ray  argu- 
ment, teaches  that  salvation  is  the  end  or  the  result  of  faith. 
What,  it  will  be  asked,  is  it  possible  that  good  works  have 
nothing  to  do  with  eternal  life?  I  say  not  that;  I  would 
not  seem  even  to  imply  that.  Throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  strongest  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  indispensable- 
ness  of  virtue,  both  in  its  root  and  flavor.  It  is  expressly 
declared  that  evil-doing  bars  the  gates  of  the  kingdom — 
"they  which  do  such  things  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God,"  and  it  is  written:  "  Blessed  are  they  that  do  His 
commandments,  that  they  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of 
life,  and  may  enter  in  through  the  gates  into  the  city." 
We  do  not  teach,  nor  are  others  authorized  to  teach,  that 
the  beatitudes  pronounced  by  Jesus  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  are  available  to  any  who  fail  to  comply  with  the 
conditions.  They  who  receive  the  benediction  must  breathe 
the  spirit  on  which  it  depends,  and  they  who  are  looking 
for  forgiveness  must  not  fail  to  be  forgiving  in  their  turn. 
L  know  of  no  salvation  that  regards  these  moral  and  spir- 
itual excellencies  as  superfluous.  At  this  point  we  have 
no  Serious  controversy  with  the  statements  made  in  the 
lecture  before  us,  however  one  may  object  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  are  put.  We  all  hold  to  the  great  truth  that, 
"  without  holiness,  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,"  and  that 
"  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation"  teaches  us  "  to 
deny  ungodliness  and  worldly  crests,  and  to  live  soberly, 
righteously,  and  godly  in  this  present  world."  And,  who- 


48  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

soever  represents  us  to  the  contrary,  gives  currency  to  a 
slander  as  foul  as  it  is  false. 

But,  while  this  position  is1  to  be  maintained  most 
earnestly,  it  is  impossible  to  read  the  New  Testament  with- 
out arriving  at  the  conclusion  that,  in  some  very  real  sense, 
faith  is  interwoven  with  the  soul's  salvation.  To  escape 
from  this  fact,  Col.  Ingersoll  has  been  obliged  to  manipu- 
late his  witnesses,  and  to  reject,  altogether,  the  testimony 
of  one  who  has  as  good  a  right  to  be  heard  as  the  others. 
Certainly,  John  teaches  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath 
everlasting  life,"  and  shows  how  dependent  we  all  are  upoa 
Christ  for  salvation.  This  is  not  called  in  question,  and  we 
need  not  therefore  multiply  texts  in  its  defense.  That  the 
same  doctrine  runs  through  the  epistles  will  hardly  be 
seriously  denied.  "  Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  we 
have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, "  "  in 
whom  ye  also  trusted,  after  that  ye  heard  the  word  of 
truth,  the  gospel  of  your  salvation,"  are  texts  which  indi- 
cate the  direction  of  apostolic  thought  upon  this  subject. 
"When  we  turn  back  to  three  Evangelists  we  find  the  same 
doctrine,  not  only  implied,  but  expressed.  In  the  account 
given  by  Mark  of  our  Lord's  first  preaching  we  find  him 
saying,  "The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
at  hand;  repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel."  And  the  great 
commission  under  which  the  Apostles  were  to  act,  and  which 
last  Sunday  came  in  for  no  small  amount  of  vituperative 
eloquence,  is  but  an  echo  of  this  original  proclamation. 
The  same  writer  represents  Christ  as  saying  to  Peter, 
"Have  faith  in  God;"  and  on  another  occasion  he  records 
the  fact  that  "  seeing  their  faith,"  he  said,  "  Be  of  good 
cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee."  Indeed,  all  the  benefits 
conferred  by  Christ's  ministry  presuppose  the  existence  of 
faith  in  Him  aa  tlie  Messiah.  He  not  only  directly  asks  the 
people  whether  they  possess  it,  but  speaks  of  His  gracious 


BY  DR.  LORIMER.  49 

purposes  as  being  hindered  by  their  unbelief.  "When  he 
says  to  them,  "  Come  to  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest;  take  my  yoke  upon  you 
and  learn  of  me;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart,  and 
ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls,"  confidence  in  Himself  is 
necessarily  implied.  How  could  they  take  Him  at  His 
word  unless  they  were  moved  to  do  so  by  their  faith? 

I  admit  that  there  is  growth  and  development  in  the 
New  Testament  teachings  on  this  subject,  as  on  every  other 
with  which  it  is  concerned.  There  were  reasons  why  the 
people  should  be  gradually  led  up  step  by  step  to  the 
apprehension  of  the  doctrines  of  grace,  and  he  must  be  blind 
who  fails  to  discern  this  advancement  in  the  writings  of 
the  Apostles.  But  notwithstanding  this  admission,  the 
germs  of  all  that  was  afterward  more  fully  elaborated 
appears  in  the  utterances  of  the  Savior.  Do  the  Apostles 
dwell  on  the  necessity  of  our  becoming  "  new  creatures  ?" 
Not  only  does  John  represent  Jesus  as  saying:  "  Ye  must 
be  born  again,"  but  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  describe 
Him  as  preaching  "  repentance,"  which  is  one  aspect  of  the 
same  thing,  and  as  insisting  on  the  tree  being  made  good 
if  we  would  have  the  fruit  good  as  well.  Do  they  magnify 
His  gracious  dying  for  the  world^  They  were  anticipated 
by  Him  of  whom  they  wrote,  for  during  His  ministry,  as 
reported  by  Matthew,  He  claimed  "  to  give  His  life  a  ran- 
som for  many,"  and  in  the  institution  of  the  last  supper 
said:  "This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  which  is 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  And  thus  faith, 
too,  proceeded  from  the  earliest  intimations  of  its  import- 
ance to  grow  in  clearness,  until  in  the  epistles  it  appears 
distinctly  defined  as  to  its  nature  and  value,  and  we  might 
just  as  well  deny  to  the  full  head  of  wheat  the  existence  of 
the  germ  from  whence  it  sprang,  as  to  deny  to  the  com- 


50  RJSPLI  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

pieted  conception  of  this  grace  in  the  apostolic  writings 
its  rootage  in  the  earliest  works  of  our  Lord  Himself. 

The  Vital  Relation  of  Faith  to  the  Soul— Its  Elevating  and  Saving  Power 
When  Fixed  on  Jeans  Christ. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  advance  another  step  in  this 
investigation.  How  comes  it  that  faith  is  made  to  sustain 
so  vital  a  relation  to  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  soul?  My 
first  answer  is,  because  it  is  the  source  of  godliness  in  heart 
and  life.  Paul  when  writing  to  the  Thessalonians  associ- 
ates them  together;  and  Peter,  alluding  to  the  conversion 
of  the  Gentiles,  declares  that  God  purified  their  hearts  by 
faith.  In  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  Galatians,  Colos- 
sians,  and  Hebrews,  stress  is  laid  on  the  thought  that  our 
union  with  Christ,  which  is  effected  by  faith,  should  be  and 
must  be  productive  of  good  works.  They  flow  from  it  nec- 
essarily, as  wreathed  forms  of  beauty  rise  from  the  sea,  as 
broad  gleams  of  light  stream  down  from  the  sun,  and  as 
flowers  and  harvests  spring  from  the  fertile  earth.  To 
understand  the  matter  more  fully  we  must  remember  that 
the  Bible  assumes  the  need  in  humanity  of  a  new  principle 
of  moral  life.  Christ  says  that  He  came  to  seek  and  to  save 
the  lost.  That  we  are  in  some  sense  lost  has  been  more 
than  suspected,  even  by  those  who  have  sought  guidance 
from  the  light  of  nature  only;  for  theyihave  been  sadly  con- 
scious of  imperfection  in  their  lives.  Were  we  to  succeed 
in  destroying  the  Bible,  we  would  still  fail  to  erase  from 
human  consciousness  the  conviction  that  sin  reigns  unto 
death. 

Sin  is  here,  not  because  the  Bible  teaches  it,  but  because 
we  transgress  the  divine  law.  But  how  shall  we  be  deliv- 
ered from  this  thralldom?  How  shall  we  so  influence  our 
heart  that  henceforward  our  bent,  drift,  and  tendency  shall 
be  toward  righteousness?  To  this  no  answer  is  given  by 
last  Sabbath's  lecture.  That  has  no  redemption  to  preach 


BY  DR.  LORI  HER.  51 

from  a  dreary  past,  no  encouragement  to  extend  of  a  nobler 
future.  That  simply  assures  us  that  if  we  are  in  the  wrono- 
we  must  continue  in  it,  and  sink  in  it  deeper  and  deeper. 
But  this  is  not  the  message  of  the  gospel.  That  teaches 
the  possibility  of  implanting  in  the  heart  a  new  principle, 
which  will  regenerate  both  character  and  life.  The  prin- 
ciple which  it  thus  highly  exalts  is  faith — not  faith  in  a 
creed,  in  a  form  of  words,  but  in  a  person,  and  that  person 
Christ.  Have  you  never  observed  the  elevating  and  puri- 
fying power  of  this  grace  in  other  relations?  When  a 
young  man  who  has  been,  reckless  unites  himself  with  a 
pure,  devoted  woman  in  marriage,  if  he  has  confidence  in 
her,  how  decisively  her  character  will  act  on  his.  His  affi- 
ance with  her  creates  a  purer  air  around  him,  and  imprints 
upon  his  heart  both  the  reality  and  loveliness  of  a  virtuous 
life.  Or,  to  change  the  illustration,  let  it  be  the  confidin«- 
love  of  a  child  in  a  mother,  or  of  a  son  in  a  father,  or  of 
one  friend  in  another,  and  in  proportion  as  the  object  of 
trust  is  morally  exalted  will  it  have  power  to  transform 
into  its  own  likeness.  Pre-eminently  must  this  be  true  of 
Christ.  Consider  His  greatness,  His  moral  splendor  and 
spiritual  magnificence.  He  represents  Himself  not  only  as 
the  teacher  of  the  world,  but  as  its  sacrifice  for  sin.  As  such 
He  magnifies  in  our  eyes  the  dignity  of  the  moral  law  and 
of  personal  purity.  He  does  not  leave  the  impression  that 
if  we  wrong  any  one  it  can  be  passed  unnoticed  by  the  Su- 
preme Ruler.  The  wrong  must  not  only  be  atoned  for  by 
his  priestly  offering,  but  we  must  right  it  ourselves  as  far  as 
possible,  aud  whatever  remains  of  compensation  God  will 
not  withhold  from  the  sufferer. 

Saved,  Not  for  Faith's  Sake,  Nor  Work's  Sake,  But  for  Christ's  Sake. 

It  is  a  misrepresentation  to  imply  that  if  we  injure  a 
fellow  being,  we  can  obtain   forgiveness  without   being 


52  RE  PL  Y  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NE  W  LECTURE, 

deeply  sensible  of  our  guilt,  and  without  sincere  efforts  to 
counteract  the  evils  we  have  wrought.  Christ  taught  no 
such  doctrine,  neither  do  we.  Christ  taught  the  abornin- 
ableness  of  iniquity,  the  blasphemy  of  wrong  doing;  and 
on  the  other  side,  the  essential  and  eternal  beauty  of  right- 
eousness. And  if  we  trust  Him,  that  is,  if  we  receive  Him  as 
our  prophet,  priest,  and  king,  we  say  amen,  to  all  that  He 
is  and  to  all  that  He  proclaims;  we  accept  Him  as  the  pat- 
tern of  our  life  and  as  its  inspiration.  How  can  there  be 
such  trust  without  morality?  and  how  can  there  be  morality 
springing  from  such  a  source  without  peace  of  mind,  and 
hope  of  everlasting  salvation?  Faith  saves,  not  because 
there  is  in  it  intrinsic  worth  greater  than  resides  in  right- 
eousness, but  because  it  is  itself  the  source  of  righteous- 
ness, bringing  us  into  fellowship  with  One  whose  presence 
must  ever  tend  to  chase  away  the  shadow  of  sin..  \Ve  are 
saved,  not  for  faith's  sake,  nor  for  our  works'  sake,  but  for 
Christ's  sake;  by  whom  we  are  influenced,  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  faith,  to  preserve  ourselves  blameless  in 
thought  and  deed  unto  the  end. 

This  is  the  gospel  that  I  preach  to  you.  That  its  truth 
has  been  confirmed  by  its  influence  on  society,  such  impar- 
tial writers  as  Lecky,  who,  as  you  know,  is  not  favorably 
disposed  to  Christianity,  concedes ;  and  there  are  few  who 
would  venture  the  assertion  made  last  Sabbath,  "  that  na 
tions  in  proportion  as  they  have  been  religious,  have  gone 
back  to  barbarism."  The  examples  adduced  to  maintain 
this  allegation,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Italy,  have  been 
afflicted  with  a  system  that  can  hardly  claim  very  close 
affinity  with  primitive  Christianity.  But  nothing  was  said 
of  England,  Germany,  and  America,  and  all  the  philanthro- 
pic triumphs  of  Christianity  in  these  countries  were  con- 
veniently passed  unnoticed.  The  selection  of  France  to 
prove  the  beneficial  influence  of  infidelity  was  far  from 


BY  DR.  LORIMER.  53 

iortunate;  for  to-day,  with  all  of  its  material  prosperity 
there  is  more  of  unrest,  and,  perhaps,  more  of  unhappiness 
than  elsewhere.  The  republic  is,  at  best,  a  tyranny,  and  its 
moral  corruption  threatens  to  engulf  it.  Others  have  read 
history  as  well  as  Col.  Ingersoll,  and  others  see,  what  IK 
can  not,  that,  wherever  the  gospel  has  been  preached,  and 
preached  most  freely,  the  intellectual  and  moral  life  of  the 
people  have  advanced.  There  true  freedom  has  taken  root, 
there  education  has  flourished,  and  there  the  home  has 
developed  in  sanctity  and  beauty.  France  has  no  home 
life ;  France  has  but  a  dim  apprehension  of  any  other  evangel 
than  violence ;  and  if  France  is  ever  rescued  from  the  power 
of  her  bloody  traditions,  it  will  only  be  through  that  gospel 
which  is  again  being  proclaimed  in  her  white  fields. 

Infidelity  Unmasked. 

But,  however  we  may  read  the  past,  one  thing  is  clear 
from  the  lecture  whose  leading  thoughts  we  have  considered, 
humanity  is  left  hopeless  and  helpless  by  infidelity.  If  we 
are  in  sorrow  it  has  no  comfort,  if  we  are  in  sin  it  has  no 
deliverance,  if  we  are  in  perplexity  it  has  no  message,  if  we 
are  in  darkness  it  has  no  light.  The  virtue  it  preaches  is 
without  foundation,  the  heroism  it  inculcates  is  without 
inducement,  and  the  immortality  it  whispers  is  without 
evidence.  Its  loftiest  sentiments  are  borrowed  from  the 
religion  it  affects  to  despise;  the  liberty  which  it  claims  to 
champion,  it  has  sacrificed  but  little  to  secure;  and  the 
sweet  charities  it  commends,  it  has  done  nothing  to  estab- 
lish. The  garland  eloquence  wherewith  it  clothes  itself,  is 
the  adornment  of  a  corpse,  every  flower  sheaths  a  worm  in 
its  'bosom,  and  every  breath  of  fragrance  is  mingled  with 
death.  Its  oratory  smells  of  the  tomb,  and  the  symbol  of 
its  hope  is  an  eyeless,  tongueless  skull,  grinning  in  mocking 
insolence  at  everything  that  dignifies  and  ennobles  life.  It 


54  REPLY  TO  INQBRSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

brings  no  benefaction,  it  pronounces  no  benediction,  but 
casts  its  baneful  shadow  on  all  that  is  fair  and  sacred.  From 
its  cold  lips  there  comes  no  grand  and  rounded  full  "  Yea'' 
to  match  its  piercing,  blighting  and  destroying  "  Nay."  It 
is  simply  a  huge  negation,  seeking  with  one  hand  to  stop 
the  mouth  of  religion,  and  with  the  other  to  write  on  hu- 
man aspirations  and  beliefs  a  bitter  and  derisive  "  No."  It 
has  no  gospel  of  salvation  even  for  this  world,  but  only  an 
evangel  of  destruction. 

Let  us  then  turn  from  it,  and  proclaim  Him  in  whom  is 
life,  and  who  came  "  that  we  might  have  life,  and  have  it 
more  abundantly."  Let  us,  in  realizing  the  insufficiency  of 
all  other  answers,  repeat  to  those  who  ask,  "  What  must  we 
do  to  be  saved?"  "  Believe  on.  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
thou  shalt  be  saved,"  saved  from  sin,  saved  from  despair, 
saved  from  uselessness  and  misery,  anci  saved  forever  more 
in  the  kingdom  of  His  glory, 


IF^OIF1. 


A  Little  Story— Ingersoll  "  Innocent  of  Greek, "  and  tlie  Consequences. 

The  story  is  told  of  a  certain  scholar  who  made  a  great 
flourish  of  a  so-called  rare  discovery,  but  was  brought  to 
confusion  by  a  critic,  who  said,  after  exposing  him,  that  he 
was  reminded  of  a  caution  often  uttered  by  his  grand- 
mother: ''Children  should  not  play  with  sharp-edged  tools 
or  they  will  cut  their  fingers."  Now,  when  Col.  Ingersoll, 
who  appears  to  be  innocent  of  Greek,  dabbles  in  New  Tes- 
tament criticism,  he  is  constantly  cutting  his  fingers,  al- 
though he  does  not  seem  to  be  aware  of  it. 

One  may  well  be  ashamed  to  attempt  any  reply  to  such  a 
lecture  as  the  one  entitled:  "What  Shall  "We  Do  to  Be 
Saved?" — a  lecture  which  is  full  of  disgraceful  blunders; 
and  yet,  if  Mr.  Ingersoll  should  become  the  apostle  of  Com* 
munism,  our  best  statesmen  would  probably  think  it  wise 
to  combat  principles  which,  uttered  with  adroitness,  would 
be  very  popular,  although  evidently  fallacious  to  every  stu- 
dent of  political  economy.  The  editor  of  the  Tribune, 
therefore,  has  done  well  to  summon  the  clergy  to  answer 
Col.  Ingersoll's  statements  concerning  Matthew. 

The  assertion  that  the  New  "  Testament  wae  not  written 
for  hundreds  of  years  after  the  Apostles  were  dust"  is  so 
wilct  as  to  need  no  refutation,  and  would  be  laughed  to 

65 


56  REPL  Y  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NE  W  LECTURE, 

scorn  by  the  most  radical  critics  in  Germany.     Intelligent 
skeptics  would  never  think  of  making  such  a  claim. 

The  statement  that  "  in  the  original  manuscripts  *  * 
the  epistles  are  addressed  to  nobody,"  might  seem  a  little 
more  plausible  to  one  unacquainted  with  the  facts.  But 
all  of  Paul's  epistles  are  addressed  to  some  specific  church 
or  person.  A  man  who  cares  for  the  truth  would  be  likely 
to  hide  his  head  for  shame  after  making  such  an  entirely 
false  affirmation. 

Ingersoll's  Interpolations,  "  Wont  Do." 

Col.  Ingersoll's  assertions  about  interpolations  in  the 
original  text  of  the  Ne*v  Testament  are  unreliable  with  one 
exception.  It  is  true  that  many  scholars  are  inclined  to 
reject  Mark,  xvi.,  9-20,  as  not  from  the  same  author  as  that 
which  precedes.  Still,  critics  who  are  not  considered  ortho- 
dox, such  as  Schleiermacher,  De  Wette,  Schwarz,  Strauss, 
and  Hilgenfeld,  defend  its  authenticity.  Even  those  who 
•affirm  that  these  verses  were  not  written  by  Mark,  claim 
for  them  a  very  early  origin,  since  they  are  found  in  the 
Syriac  version,  and^are  quoted  by  Irenseus  (d.  202).  It  is 
of  course  very  convenient  for  the  opponents  of  future  pun- 
ishment to  assume  that  all  the  passages  regarding  retribu- 
tion in  another  world  are  interpolations,  but  the  doctrine 
rests  upon  a  large  number  of  passages  which  are  found  in 
all  the  oldest  manuscripts.  I  need  not  say  that  Col.  Inger- 
soll  makes  an  assertion  without  the  slightest  foundation 
in  fact  when  he  claims  that  Christ's  answer  to  the  young 
man  who  asked,  What  lack  I  yet?  "Go  sell  that  thou  hast 
and  give  to  the  poor,"  is  an  "  interpolation  effected  through 
the  Church's  greed  of  gain."  These  are  a  few  specimens  of 
the  false  statements  in  which  the  lecture  abounds.  Is  Mr. 
Ingersoll  as  ignorant  as  he  seems,  or  is  he  dishonest  and 
reckless? 

Awaiting  further  developments,   I  prefer  to  call  him 


BY  PROF.  CURTIS.  57 

ignorant.  He  is  like  the  blind  leading  the  blind  of  whom 
Christ  speaks.  Turning  now  to  Mr.  Ingersoll's  resume  of 
Matthew's  teaching,  we  find  that  the  orator's  half  truths 
are  as  misleading  as  falsehoods.  He  tells  his  audience  that 
he  has  read  them  every  word  in  Matthew  on  the  subject  of 
salvation,  and  "  there  is  not  one  word  about  believing  any- 
thing. *  *  *  If  it  was  necessary  to  believe  anything  to 
go  to  Heaven,  Matthew  should  have  told  us."  This  is  a 
very  superficial  statement.  We  have  no  evidence  that 
Christ  clearly  preached  salvation  through  Himself  until 
after  His  resurrection,  and  then  He  seems  to  have  spoken 
to  His  disciples.  Such  preaching  would  have  been  entirely 
premature,  as  neither  they  nor  the  people  would  have  been 
prepared  to  understand  it,  for  even  the  twelve  Apostles 
were  looking  for  a  temporal  deliverance  of  the  Jewish 
nation  through  Him. 

There  can,  however,  be  no  difficulty  in  finding  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation  through  faith  in  Christ  in  Matthew. 
He  clearly  teaches  that  there  are  two  grand  classes  of  men. 
In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  Christ  says:  "  No  man  can 
serve  two  masters;  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and  love 
the  other,  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  despise  the 
other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon."  Again 
Christ  strikes  a  heavy  blow  at  indifferentism  when  he 
affirms:  "He  that  is  not  with  Me  is  against  Me;  and  he 
that  gathereth  not  with  Me  scattereth." 

He  repeatedly  asserts  that  there  will  be  a  separation  be- 
tween the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  This  he  sets  forth  most 
impressively  in  several  parables  which  He  Himself  explains. 
In  the  parable  of  the  tares  He  says  that  "  the  good  seed  are 
the  children  of  the  Kingdom,  but  the  tares  are  the  children 
of  the  wicked  one.  *  *  *  As  therefore  the  tares  are 
gathered  and  burned  in  the  fire,  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of 
this  world.  The  Son  of  Man  shall  send  forth  His  angels, 


68  REPLY  TO  INUERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

and  they  shall  gather  out  of  His  Kingdom  all  things  that 
offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity,  and  shall  cast  them 
into  a  furnace  of  fire."  We  have  the  same  separation  be- 
tween two  classes  of  men  in  the  parables- of  the  net,  the 
foolish  virgins,  etc.,  and  in  that  solemn  description  of  the 
time  when  all  nations  shall  be  gathered  before  the  Son  of 
Man,  "  and  He  shall  separate  them  one  from  another  as  the 
shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats." 

But  Col.  Ingersoll  affirms  that  this  very  passage  along 
with  many  others  shows,  according  to  Matthew,  that  men 
will  be  saved  by  good  works  without  faith.  It  is  evident, 
however,  when  we  examine  Christ's  ideal  of  a  righteousness 
which  saves,  that  is  utterly  unattainable.  He  entirely  rules 
out  the  righteousness  of  the  largest  and  most  respectable 
body  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  says :  "  Except  your  right- 
eousness shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven."  JSTow,  whether  this  refers  to  a  degree  or  kind  of 
righteousness,  such  a  test  excludes  a  large  proportion  of  the 
human  race  from  Heaven  who  would  fall  far  below  these 
Jewish  moralists. 

Love  and  Obedience. 

It  is  clear  from  Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount  that  no 
merely  untoward  obedience  to  the  law  is  sufficient.  He 
says:  "Whosoever  shall  look  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her 
hath  committed  adultery  already  with  her  in  his  heart.*' 
He  condemns  the  Pharisees  because  they  "  outwardly  ap- 
pear to  be  righteous,"  while  they  are  "full  of  iniquity." 
His  conception  of  obedience  to  the  law  is  not  of  an  outward 
conformity  to  the  ten  commandments,  for  when  a  certain 
lawyer  asked  which  is  the  greatest  commandment  in  the 
law  he  replied:  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind. 
This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment;  and  the  second  is 


BY  PROF.  CURTIS.  59 

like  anto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On 
these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  proph- 
ets." But  what  man  has  ever  kept  these  commandments? 
And  if  not,  how  then  can  we  be  saved? 

Indeed  this  is  a  question  that  the  disciples  put  to  Christ, 
according  to  Matthew,  in  view  of  the  impossibility  of  ful- 
filling His  requirements:  ""Who  then  can  be  saved?'' 
Christ  answers:  ""With  men  this  is  impossible;  but  with 
God  all  tilings  are  possible,"  i.  e.,  according  to  Meyer? 
Christ  refers  the  disciples  from  human  helplessness  in  ob- 
taining salvation  to  the  Almighty  power  of  converting  and 
saving  grace.  That  human  righteousness  is  not  sufficient^ 
for  salvation  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  parable  of  the  man 
who  had  not  on  a  wedding  garment. 

Matthew  plainly  teaches  the  necessity  of  conversion.  He 
represents  Christ  as  saying  in  so  many  words :  "  Except  ye 
be  coiverted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  and  as  exhorting  His 
hearers:  "Enter  ye  at  the  straight  gate;  for  wide  is  the 
gate  and  broad  is  the  way  that  leadeth  to  destruction,  and 
many  there  be  which  go  in  thereat." 

.t  naturally  follows  that  Matthew  should  teach  that  Jesus 
is  he  Savior  of  sinners.  Plence  we  read  in  the  communi- 
caion  which  the  angel  made  to  Joseph,  that  he  was  to  "call 
ELs  name  Jesus,  for  He  shall  save  His  people  from  their 
eiis."  This  is  remarkable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Jews 
wo*e  looking  for  a  temporal  deliverer  in  the  Messiah,  and  that 
tb  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  seems  to  have  been  more 
eoecially  designed  for  the  Jews.  Moreover,  we  find  Christ 
fcgiving  sins.  It  is  related  that  one  sick  of  the  palsy  waa 
bought  to  Christ,  and  that  He,  seeing  their  faith,  said  to 
tie  sick  of  the  palsy:  "Son,  be  of  good  cheer;  thy  sins 
ae  forgiven  thee."  The  scribes  of  course  thought  Him 
of  blasphemy.  Jesus  then,  reading  their  thoughts, 


60  REPLY  TO  INQERSOLLS  NEW  LECTURE, 

that  they  might  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  had  power  on  earth 
to  forgive  sins,  commanded  the  sick  of  the  palsy:  ,  "Arise, 
-take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house." 

In  the  institution  of  the  Last  Supper  the  ground  of  for- 
giveness is  clearly  stated  as  being  in  the  bloocl'of  Christ, 
lie  Himself  said  as  He  took  the  cup,  gave  it  ib  His  dis- 
'ciples,  and  commanded  them  to  drink  of  it:     "  This  is  My 


blood  ol  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  fo: 


many  for 


the  remission  of  sins."  Creiner  remarks  that  tnis  is  "  the 
forgivness  of  sins  on  the  part  of  God,  with  refeitenoe  to  the 
future  judgment."  The  New  Testament,  or  ]^ew  Cove- 
nant, is  here  mentioned.  We  know  what  the  Old  Cove- 
nant was.  It  is  described  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  modus. 
Peace-oiferings  were  offered.  Moses  took  the  book  W  the 
Covenant  and  read  it  before  the  people.  They  promied  to 
keep  it.  Moses  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  peace-off'irings 
upon  them.  The  author  of  the  Hebrews  alludes  to  ihose 
two  Covenants  when  he  says:  "For  if  the  blood  of  Wlls 
and  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sanctifieth  to  the 
purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 
Christ,  who,  through  the  eternal  spirit,  offered  Himilf 
without  spot,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  (to 
serve  the  living  God." 

Faith  in  Christ  the  Great  Basis  of  Salvation. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  Matthew,  in  his  account  |>f 
most  of  the  cures  wrought  by  Christ,  represents  Him  is 
making  faith  the  condition  of  His  mighty  works  and  |f 
His  healing  power.  We  read  that  in  His  own  country 
did  not  many  mighty  works  because  of  their  unbelief, 
the  Canaanitish  woman  He  says:  "  O  woman,  great  is  tl 
faith;  be  it  unto  thee  even  as  thou  wilt."  To  the  worn; 
with  the  issue  of  blood  He  said,  "Daughter,  be  of  goo| 
comfort;  thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole."  [Literallj 


BY  PROF.  CURTIS.  61 

hath  saved  tliee.]  To  the  blind  men  He  said,  "  '  Believe  ye 
tliat  I  ain  able  to  do  this?'  They  said  unto  Him,  '  Year 
Lord.'  Then  touched  He  their  eyes,  saying,  '  According  to 
your  faith  be  it  unto  you.' "  Are  we  to  suppose  that  Christ 
would  mate  faith  a  condition  of  the  salvation  of  the  body 
and  not  make  it  a  condition  of  the  salvation  of  the  soul? 
especially  vhen  we  find  Him  regarding  the  forgiveness  o^ 
sins  as  of  the  first  importance  with  the  sick  of  the  palsy > 
and  grantirg  him  healing  because  of  the  faith  of  those  who 
brought  MM  to  Jesus?  Any  other  conclusion  is  unreason- 
able. Indeed,  we  find  Christ  pronouncing  a  fearful  doom 
on  Chsmzin,  Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum  because  they 
repented/  not  on  seeing  His  mighty  works;  that  is,  they 
did  no?  believe  in  Him,  and  so  did  not  repent.  But  we 
have  a  more  explicit  declaration  by  Matthew  when  he  says 
of  Jeais:  "In  His  name  shall  the  Gentiles  trust"  [liter- 
arly  bpe].  But  they  could  not  do  this  without  faith. 

If  Matthew  has  in  mind  the  name  which  he  uses  hun- 
dreds of  times,  and  far  more  than  any  other^  then  the  name  in 
whch  the  Gentiles  are  to  hope  is  Jesus,  by  which  He  was 
caled  because  he  should  save  His  people  from  their  sins- 
Btt  the  most  explicit  passage  is  where  Matthew  quotes 
CHst  as  saying :  "  Whoever,  therefore,  shall  confess  Me 
beore  men,  him  will  I  also  confess  before  My  Father  which  is 
inHeaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny  Me  before  men,  him 
wl  I  also  deny  before  My  Father  in  Heaven."  Cremer  in 
h;  Biblico-Theological  Lexicon  says  :  "  The  confessing  of 
Grist  is  the  outward  expression  of  personal  faith  in  Him. 
Tiis  is  contrasted  with  [the  word  translated  deny]  a/rneis- 
tai, — to  withhold,  refuse,  or  withdraw  such  a  confession. 
In  closing  this  article  I  do  not  deny  that  Matthew  lays 
eecial  emphasis  upon  good  works.  They  are  not  inconsis- 
mt  with  salvation  by  faith.  No  faith  can  be  genuine  which 
oes  not  manifest  itself  by  them.  But  MatthQw  nowhere 


62 


REPLY  TO  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 


claims  that  men  are  saved  by  works  alone.  Th<!  works 
mentioned  in  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Hattiiew  are 
simply  the  fruits  of  a  saving  faith.  To  be  sure,  ^e  do  not 
find  any  approach  to  a  discussion  of  the  doctrine;'  That  is 


reserved  for  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  eWn  in  Mat- 
thew there  are  abundant  indications  that  "  by  tl  e  deeds  of 
the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified,"  and  that  '  Christ  is 
at  the  end  of  law  for  righteousness  to  every  o]  e  that  be- 
lieveth." 


OIF1 


Prefatory  Statement. 

Two  weeks  ago  the  boardings  of  this  city  were  placarded 
with  bills  announcing  that  one  who  was  well  known  would 
give  what  he  considered  to  be  the  true  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion. What  he  considered  the  true  answer  was  delivered 
in  one  of  the  large  theatres  last  Sunday  afternoon,  and  pub- 
lished in  the  leading  newspapers  of  this  city,  and  sown 
broadcast  over  the  Northwest.  I  was  told  by  a  great  many 
people  that  it  was  desirable  to  let  the  whole  thing  alone, 
but  on  talking  with  several  I  found  that  there  were  not 
unlikely  many  people  who  were  taken  up  with  the  lecture 
as  it  was  delivered,  and  inclined  to  adopt  the  sentiments 
that  were  expressed.  I  then  thought  that  the  best  thing 
that  could  be  done  would  be  to  rent  that  same  theatre  and 
take  up  the  challenge  that  had  been  apparently  thrown 
down,  and  answer  the  question  in  an  entirely  different  way, 
and  show,  step  by  step,  where  the  lecturer  was  wrong  in  the 
estimation  of  his  answerer.  I  found  objections  in  the  way 
of  doing  that  myself,  or  of  getting  others  to  do  it,  though 
I  tried;  and  then  I  determined  that  I  should  speak  upon 
the  subject,  not  by  way  of  answer  to  that  lecture,  in  my 
own  pulpit  this  morning. 

But  in  the  meantime  some  kind  friend,  I  suppose,  put 
some  communication  into  the  public  press  to  the  effect  that 


04  REPLY  TO  INQERSOLUS  NEK  LECTURE, 

I  was  going  to  answer  Col.  Ingersoll  this  morning,  which 
was  not  my  intention.  No  doubt  that  announcement  has 
brought  a  good  many  people  here  to-day,  arid,  therefore,  I 
have  thought  it  advisable  to  preface  what  I  have  to  say 
upon  this  subject,  with  a  reply  to  some  of  the  statements 
that  were  made  last  Sunday  afternoon,  and  I  think  that  the 
points  that  I  shall  indicate  will  sufficiently  exhaust  what 
was  said  then,  because  I  think  that  what  I  shall  say  will  go 
to  the  root  of  the  subject.  And  yet  I  do  not  believe  it  shall 
be  an  answer,  seriatim,  to  the  statements  that  were  made 
last  Sunday  afternoon,  because  I  do  not  think  that  that  is 
a  necessary  thing  in  this  congregation.  1  believe  there  are 
many  people  in  the  congregation  to  which  I  have  the  privi- 
lege to  minister,  who  would  not,  from  the  reputation  of  the 
lecturer  of  last  Sunday  afternoon,  so  much  as  look  at  a  single 
word  that  he  said;  and  I  do  not  wish  to  put  into  the  minds 
of  such  people  the  things  that  he  said  on  that  occasion. 
And  I  think  that,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  people, 
very  possibly  in  this  congregation,  who  may  suppose  that 
those  arguments  are  satisfactory,  and  I  want  to  show  that 
they  were  not  arguments  at  all,  and  therefore,  that  they 
were  the  reverse  of  satisfactory. 

I  thought  it  necessary  to  preface  what  I  have  to  say  this 
morning  with  these  few  remarks,  in  order  that  you  may 
understand  distinctly  the  position  that  I  take  to-day.  This 
is  not  a  position  I  have  chosen.  It  is  a  position  which  the 
force  of  circumstances  has,  in  a  measure,  forced  upon  me, 
for  I  felt  that  I  should  be  untrue  to  myself,  untrue  to  you, 
and  untrue  to  the  cause  of  God  which  I  believe  has  been 
by  that  lecture  assailed,  if  I  did  not  take  up  the  matter  now, 
or  passed  it  over  in  silence. 

Ingersoll's  Alledged  Interpolations. 

Now,  one  of  the  things  he  said  last  Sunday  afternoon 
was  this :  "  The  epistles  are  addressed  to  nobody,  and  they 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  65 

are  signed  by  the  same  person,  and  all  the  addresses,  and 
all  the  pretended  ear-marks  showing  to  whom  they  are 
written,  and  by  whom  they  were  written,  are  simply  inter- 
polations, and  whoever  has  studied  the  subject  knows  it." 

Now,  this  is  what  I  say  in  reply.  All  the  Pauline  epis- 
tles are  addressed  to  particular  churches  and  individuals, 
the  only  doubtful  one  being  that  addressed  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  many  critics  conclude  that  the  disputed  words  are  gen- 
uine. 

The .  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  always  been  recognized 
as  anonymous.  The  epistle  of  St.  James,  the  first  and  sec- 
ond epistles  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  epistle  of  St.  Jude,  claim 
in  the  opening  to  be  written  by  those  whose  names  they 
bear.  So  much  for  the  epistles  not  being  addressed  to  any- 
body. It  is  a  question  of  fact.  It  is  a  question  of  interpre- 
*ation. 

And  now  about  the  conclusions  of  the  epistles.  The  16th 
chapter  of  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  and  21st  verse 
reads:  "The  salutation  of  me,  Paul,  with  mine  own  hand.'' 

The  6th  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the 
llth  verse,  reads:  "Yet  see  how  large  a  letter" — or,  liter- 
ally, as  every  critic  knows,  "  In  what  sprawling  characters 
I  have  written  unto  you,  with  mine  own  hand." 

The  4th  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  and  the 
18th  verse,  reads  thus :  "  The  salutation  is  by  the  hand  of 
me,  Paul." 

The  3d  chapter  of  the  second  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians 
and  the  67th  verse,  reads  thus:  " The  salutation  of  Paul, 
with  mine  own  hand." 

So  much  for  the  assertion  that  the  epistles  are  signed  by 
nobody.  It  is  a  question  of  fact,  not  a  question  of  interpre- 
tation. 

When  you  come  to  look  at  the  structure  ot  the  epistles 
you  find  this:  That  it  was  not  the  custom  of  that  day — and 

5 


60  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLL'8  NEW  LECTURE, 

you  may  find  that,  not  in  these  epistles  only,  but  in  other 
epistles  that  are  extant  at  the  present  day,  that  were  writ- 
ten at  that  time — you  will  find  it  was  not  the  custom  of 
that  day  to  begin  and  end  a  letter  as  we  do.  They  put  their 
name  in  the  fore  part,  and  usually  conclude  with  a  greeting 
and  a  benediction.  And  that,  you  find,  is  the  case  ordina- 
rily with  these  epistles. 

Clear,  Pointed,  and  Pungent  Answers  to  a  Number  of  lugersoll's  Assertions. 

Here  is  another  thing  the  lecturer  says:  "  It  has  always 
seemed  to  me  that  a  being  coming  from  another  world, 
with  a  message  of  infinite  importance  to  mankind,  should 
at  least  have  verified  that  message  by  his  own  signature." 

Well  that  is  not  criticism.  That  is  personal  conjecture. 
JSTo  one  of  those  called  orthodox  claims  that  Christ  wrote  or 
signed  any  statement  of  doctrine;  and  what  seemed  to  be 
the  object  or  the  right  course  to  pursue  is  nothing  to  the 
point.  The  question  is  a  question  of  fact — keep  to  it — not 
of  conjecture. 

Here  is  another  thing  that  the  lecturer  says:  "This  Tes- 
tament was  not  written  for  hundreds  of  years  after  the 
Apostles  were  dust."  My  answer  is  this:  This  is  an  un- 
supported assertion  by  the  lecturer;  its  value  can  be  esti- 
mated when  it  is  remembered — and  mind  what  I  say — and 
mind,  what  I  say  is  only  to  be  taken  as  a  matter  of  fact 
that  is  verifiable,  and  if  it  is  not  verifiable  that  it  is  then  to 
be  asserted  as  a  falsehood — its  value  can  be  estimated  when 
it  is  remembered  that  the  acutest  and  most  careful  investi- 
gation of  those  who  have  given  a  life-time  to  the  study  of  this 
subject,  and  are,  therefore,  most  qualified  to  speak  and  decide, 
that  the  manuscripts  in  existence  at  the  present  day  are  tte 
transcripts  of  the  original  gospels,  written  by  them  whose 
names  they  bear — Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John ;  and 
that  the  most  masterly  attack  upon  the  genuineness  of 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY  67 

John's  gospel,  even  in  the  present  day,  has  been  success- 
fully repelled.  It  is  a  question  of  fact,  not  a  question  of 
interpretation. 

Here  is  another  statement  of  the  lecturer:  "It  is  among 
the  easiest  things  in  the  world  to  pick  out  at  least  one  hun- 
dred interpolations  in  the  New  Testament,  and  I  will  pick 
out  some  of  them  before  I  get  through." 

'My  answer  is  this:  That  there  have  been  and  are  some 
interpolations,  no  one  has  ever  hesitated  to  acknowledge; 
though  that  almost  all  of  them  are  of  the  smallest  possible 
importance,  anyone  at  all  acquainted  with  the  subject  must 
at  once  confess.  The  principle  upon  which  the  lecturer 
picks  out  interpolations  is,  first,  to  make  up  his  mind  as 
to  what  he  will  receive,  and  what  he  is  content  to  acknowl- 
edge that  is  true,  and  then  to  decide  that  everything  that 
he  does  not  like,  and  doesn't  think  consistent  with  his  pre- 
viously conceived  standard,  is  an  interpolation.  You  will 
find  that  distinctly  stated  in  the  lecture.  As  far  as  I  can 
remember  the  words,  and  I  am  sure  I  remember  the  sense,, 
goes  this  way:  That  where  he  quotes  certain  of  the  beati- 
tudes from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  he  says :  "  Good ;  I 
accept  that  because  I  like  it." 

But  that  is  not  criticism.  You  would  not  criticise  any 
doctrine  in  that  way.  The  lecturer  himself  would  not  him- 
self sift  evidence  in  a  court  in  that  way,  arid  I  admit  he  is- 
capable  of  doing  it.  If  he  were  a  judge  upon  the  benchr 
and  anyone  should  dare  to  try  to  sift  evidence  in  that  way, 
he  would  direct  the  jury  to  consider  that  the  counsel  was 
trying  to  abuse  his  prerogative.  I  appeal  to  the  lawyers  in 
this  assemblage;  I  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  human- 
ity, in  biblical  or  any  other  kind  of  criticism. 

The  lecturer  brings  forward  an  account  of  the  rich  young 
man  who  had  kept  all  the  commandments,  and  he  repeated 


6«  REPLY  TO  IXGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

Christ's  words  to  him.    He  said:    "  Reciting  the  command- 
ments of  the  second  table — 

"  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

"  Thau  shalt  not  covet. 

"Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness." 

And  then  the  young  man  said — and  said  the  lecturer  last 
Sunday  afternoon:  "I  don't  believe  him;  'all  these  I 
have  kept  from  my  youth  up,'  '  What  lack  I  yet?'  "  That 
is  an  interpolation. 

But  the  thing  that  he  objected  to  is  this,  that  Christ 
should  have  been  reported  to  say  in  reply  to  the  question 
"  What  lack  I  yet  ?"  "  If  thou  wouldst  be  perfect,  go  and 
sell  all  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven;  and  go  and  take  up  the  cross  and 
follow  Me."  And  he  says  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  anything 
of  the  kind;  and  yet  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  principle  that 
is  conveyed  in  that  advice  of  our  blessed  Lord  is  identically 
the  same  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  anybody  to  fol- 
low in  any  pursuit  whatever,  if  he  would  attain  his 
object,  that  pursuit  being  inconsistent  with  the  love  of 
riches?  Isn't  that  so?  And  if  the  young  man  went  away 
sorrowful,  as  the  gospel  says,  because  he  had  great  posses- 
sions, does  it  not  show  exactly  that  our  Lord  looked  right 
to  the  root  of  the  question,  and  applied  to  him  just  the 
test  which  should  show  him  how  utterly  wrong  he  was  in 
the  conclusion  to  which  he  had  come  with  regard  to  the 
observance  of  the  commandments  of  the  second  table,  and 
which  wrougness  of  conclusion  even  the  lecturer  last  Sun- 
day afternoon  is  willing  to  admit,  and  asserts  on  behalf  of 
that  young  man. 

And  then  there  is  another  thing  closely  connected  with 
that,  because  it  follows  close  after  it  in  the  gospels,  and 


B  T  DR.  CO  URTNE  Y.    >  69 

which  the  lecturer  points  out  as  showing  the  untrust- 
worthiness  of  the  gospels.  It  is  the  advice  the  blessed 
Lord  gives  to  "forsake  father,  and  mother,  and  house,  and 
lands  and  all  the  rest  for  the  sake  of  Me  and  of  My  gospel." 

Now,  then,  there  are  crises,  as  every  student  of  history 
knows,  that  occur  in  the  world's  history,  and  there  are 
crises  which  occur,  as  every  student  of  history  knows,  in  a 
nation's  history.  It  is  not  so  long  ago  that  there  was  the 
crisis  in  this  nation's  history.  Twenty  years  ago  from  this 
very  time  the  nation  was  just  on  the  very  brink  of  its  crisis, 
and  twenty  years  ago  next  year  it  was  in  the  vortex  of 
that  crisis. 

Now,  then,  what  would  the  lecturer,  what  would  anyone 
have  said,  in  that  day,  if  a  man  had  loved  father,  or  mother, 
or  brother,  or  friend,  or  house,  or  lands,  or  money,  more 
than  his  country's  honor,  and  more  than  his  country's  wel- 
fare? I  was  told,  only  yesterday,  that  he  himself  eulogized, 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  those  who  had  forsaken  father 
and  mother,  and  house  and  lands,  and  home,  and  gone  to 
maintain  their  country  against  those  whom  they  regarded 
as  rebels ;  and  that  time,  when  the  Lord  was  here,  was  the 
crisis  in  the  world's  history,  and  it  was  necessary  that  those 
who  were  heralds  of  the  cross  should  put  the  cause  of  God 
first,  above  everything,  every  consideration  of  father,  or 
mother,  or  house,  or  lands,  or  neighbor,  or  friend,  or  any- 
thing whatsoever,  besides  what  would  carry  that  cause  to 
the  consummation  to  which  it  is  destined,  in  the  time 
which  is  to  come.  It  has  not  reached  it  yet.  We  want 
something  of  the  enthusiasm,  we  want  something  of  the 
utter  regardlessness  of  everything  else  which  animated  the 
first  preachers  of  the  cross. 

After  quoting  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the 
12th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  also  the  18th  chapter,  3d  and 
4th  verses,  and  about  the  rich  young  man  to  which  I  have 


REPLY  TO  INUKRSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

just  referred,  he  says:  "This  is  all  there  is  in  Matthew 
on  the  subject  of  salvation;  not  one  word  about  belief,  etc. 
It  is  the  gospel  of  deeds,  the  gospel  of  charity,  the  gospel 
of  self-denial."  Of  course  it  is;  that  is  exactly  what 
Christianity  is;  but  what  is  the  basis  of  the  deed,  the  char- 
ity, and  the  self-denial?  I  assert  that  it  is  faith,  belief  in 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  historical  personage;  that  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  revealer  of  the  Father,  the 
rightful  king  of  mankind,  and  the  Savior  of  man.  And  if 
any  of  you  are  disturbed  on  the  subject  of  what  is  called 
biblical  criticism,  and  are  floundering  about  in  a  sea  of 
doubt,  let  me  here  remind  you  of  what  is  not 'an  original 
remark  by  me,  but  was  enunciated  by  Prebendary  Jioe,  in 
1837,  that  <(ithe  essence  of  the  Christian  religion  is  the 
historic  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth."  Don't  forget  it.  Keep 
it  in  your  minds  as  a  sentence  until  you  have  thought  it 
over  and  digested  it.  "The  essence  of  the  Christian  relig- 
ion is  the  historic  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth ;"  and  the  sig- 
nificance of  those  facts — the  facts  of  His  historic  life — is 
such  as  to  lead  men  to  believe  that  lie  is  their  head  and  He 
is  their  Savior.  That  is  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
religion. 

And  now  let '  me  detain  you  while  I  read  to  you  some- 
thing from  the  eloquent  Father  Lacordaire  in  his  "  Confer- 
ence sur  Jesus  Christ." 

How  Shall  We  Account  for  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  1 

"The  principal  question,  because  it  contains  all, the  past, 
the  present,  and  the  future,  is  this:  The  world  having 
lived  in  idolatry  in  the  times  before  Augustus,  how  has  it 
become  Christian  since  his  time?  These  are  the  two  sides 
that  divide  all  history — the  side  of  anrfquity,  and  the  side 
of  later  ages;  the  one  idolater,  plunged  into  the  most  licen- 
tious materialism;  the  other  Christian,  purified  at  the 
sources  of  a  complete  spirituality.  In  the  ancient  world 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  71 

the  flesh  publicly  prevailed  over  the  spirit;  in  the  present, 
the  spirit  publicly  prevails  over  the  fiesh.  What  has- 
caused  this?  "Who  has  produced  a  change  so  great  and  BO 
general  in  extent  between  the  two  periods  of  mankind? 
Who  has  so  greatly  modified  the  human  form  and  the 
course  of  history?  Your  fathers  adored  idols;  you,  their 
posterity,  descended  from  them  by  a  corrupted  blood ;  you 
adore  Jesus  Christ.  Your  fathers  were  materialists  even 
in  their  worship;  you  are  spiritualists  even  in  your  pas- 
eions.  Your  fathers  deny  all  that  you  believe;  you  deny 
all  that  they  believe.  Again  I  ask,  what  is  the  reason  of 
this?  There  are  no  events  without  causes  in  history,  any 
more  than  there  is  movement  without  motive  power  in 
mathematics.  What  is  this  historical  cause  which  con- 
verted the  idolatrous  world  into  the  Christian  world,  which 
gave  Charlemagne  as  a  successor  to  Nero  ?  You  are  com- 
pelled to  know  or  at  least  to  seek  it. 

"We  Catholics  say  that  this  prodigious  change  corres- 
ponds to  the  appearance  upon  earth  of  a  man  who  called 
.himself  the  Son  of  God,  sent  to  take  away  the  sins  of  the 
world — who  preached  humility,  purity,  penance,  gentle- 
ness, peace;  who  lived  piously  among  the  poor  and  lowly; 
who  died  on  a  cross,  with  arms  extended  over  us  to  bless 
us;  who  left  His  teachings  and  His  example  in  the  gospel; 
and  who,  having  touched  the  souls  of  many,  subdued  their 
pride,  and  corrected  their  senses,  has  left  in  them  a  tran- 
quil joy  so  marvelous  that  its  perfume  has  spread  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  and  has  won  even  sensuality. 

"  We  say  this.  Yes,  a  man,  a  single  man,  has  founded 
the  empire  of  Christians  upon  the  ruins  of  this  idolatrous 
empire;  and  we  do  not  marvel  thereat,  because  we  have  re- 
marked in  history  that  all  good  as  well  as  evil  invariably 
springs  from  a  single  principle,  from  a  man  the  depository 
of  the  hidden  force  of  the  demon,  or  the  invisible  force  of 
God. 


72  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

Christ  the  Summit  of  History. 

"  We  say  this,  and  we  base  our  declaration  upon  uninter- 
rupted monuments  which  begin  with  Moses  and  reach  to 
us;  we  appeal  also  to  a  publicity  of  thirty-two  consecutive 
centuries ;  we  join  together  the  Jewish  people,  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Catholic  Church,  or,  rather,  we  do  not  join  these,  they 
appear  before  us  closely  linked  together  in  a  course  of 
things  sustained  the  one  by  the  other;  we  appeal,  in  fine,  to 
the  whole  web  of  history,  and  in  the  name  of  that  immense 
monument  which  is  absolutely  necessary  to  admit  and  to 
explain,  we  say  to  you,  Jesus  Christ  is  the  supreme  expres- 
sion of  history;  He  is  its  key  and  its  revelation."  *  *  * 
<  And  if  a  gleam  of  good  faith  remains  in  the  depths  of 
your  soul,  will  you  not  be  compelled  to  say  with  us:  Yes, 
it  is  Christ  on  Calvary,  in  that  blood  which  was  shed  that 
the  renovation  of  the  human  soul  began  ?  Therefore,  gen- 
tlemen,  before  our  epoch  none  dared  to  deny  the  historical 
reality  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  one.  Before  you,  long  before 
you,  Jesus  Christ  had  enemies;  for  before  you  pride  existed, 
and  pride  is  the  chief  enemy  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Before  you  Jesus  Christ  had  enemies,  for  before  you 
sensuality  existed,  and  sensuality  is  the  second  enemy  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Before  you  Jesus  Christ  had  enemies,  but 
before  you  egotism  existed,  and  egotism  is  the  third  enemy 
of  Jesus  Christ.  And  yet  when  He  appeared  for  the  first 
time,  when  He  came  with  His  cross  -to  sap  your  pride,  to 
insult  your  senses,  to  drag  down  your  egotism  to  the  very 
dust,  what  was  said  of  Him?  Pride,  sensuality,  egotism 
have  now,  as  then,  able  men  in  their  service— Celsus, 
Pophyry,  all  the  Alexandrian  school,  and  the  lovers  of  this 
life,  and  the  throng  of  courtiers,  ever  ready  to  find  in  truth 
a  secret  enemy  in  power — what  said  they  of  Christ? 

They  pursued  Him  by  putting  His  followers  to  death ; 
by  deriding  His  life;  by  disputing  His  dogmas;  by  opprea- 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  73 

si  on  dulled  to  the  help  of  a  cause  which  betrayed  liberty; 
but  their  oooks,  subsisting  in  a  thousand  remains  by  the 
aid  of  printing — which  I  just  now  called  the  salvation  of 
history — their  books  confirm  Him;  not  one  of  them  has 
denied  the  reality  of  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  You  alone, 
coming  eighteen  centuries  after,  and  thinking  that  time, 
which  confirms  history  in  its  destroyer — you  have  dared  to 
battle  against'  the  very  light  of  the  sun,  hoping  that  every 
negation  is  at  least  a  shadow,  and  that  human  folly,  seeking 
a  refuge  against  the  severity  of  Jesus  Christ,  would  accept 
of  any  arms  as  a  defense,  or  of  any  shield  as  a  protection. 
You  have  deceived  yourselves.  History  subsists  in  spite 
of  negation,  as  the  heart  of  man  subsists  in  spite  of  the 
debauching  of  the  senses;  and  Jesus  Christ  remains  under 
the  shelter  of  unexampled  publicity,  and  of  a  necessity 
to  which  there  is  no  counterpoise,  upon  the  summit  of 
history. 

"Nevertheless,  as  a  last  hope  you  say  to  me:  If  it  were  a 
question  of  human  events  only,  such  as  those  of  which  the 
ordinary  annals  of  nations  are  composed,  it  is  manifest  that 
the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  contained  in  the  gospels  would  be 
beyond  all  discussion.  But  in  that  life  it  is  a  question  of 
events  which  bear  no  comparison  with  those  we  habitually 
witness.  It  is  a  question  of  God,  who  made  Himself  man, 
who  died  and  rose  again.  How  is  it  possible  for  us  to  ad- 
mit such  strange  things  upon  a  mass  of  human  evidence? 
For,  in  fine,  public  writings,  public  events,  the  public  and 
general  web  of  history,  all  this  assemblage  of  proofs  is 
purely  human;  and  it  is  upon  this  mortal  foundation  that 
you  base  a  history  where  all  is  superhuman.  The  base 
must  evidently  sink  under  such  a  weight. 

"  Gentlemen,  I  do  not  undervalue  the  force  of  that  objec- 
tion. Yes;  I  understand  that  when  it  is  a  question  of  the 
history  of  God  it  needs  another  pen  than  that  which  traces 


74  REPLY  TO  INOERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

the  history  of  the  greatest  man  in  the  world.  This  is  true. 
But  I  also  believe  that  God  has  solved  this  objection  by 
creating  for  His  only  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  a  history  which  is 
not  human;  that  is  to  say,  which,  in  its  proportions,  is  so 
much  above  the  nothingness  of  man  that  the  ordinary 
power  of  history  would  evidently  not  have  sufficed  for  i 
Where  will  you  find  such  connection  as  that  of  the  Jewish 
people,  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Catholic  Church?  Where  is 
there  anything  to  be  compared  to  it?  And,  moreover, 
without  returning  to  what  has  already  been  said,  where, 
among  all  the  histories  known  to  you,  do  you  find  any 
which  for  three  centuries  had  witnesses  who  gave  it  the 
testimony  of  their  blood?  Where  are  the  witnesses  who 
have  given  their  lives  in  favor  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
greatest  men  or  the  greatest  events?  Who  died  to  certify 
the  history  ot  Alexander?  Who  died  to  certify  the  history 
of  Caesar?  Who?  Not  one.  No  one  in  the  world  has 
ever  shed  his  blood  to  add  another  degree  of  evidence  to  the 
historical  certainty  of  anything  whatever.  Men  leave  his- 
tory to  take  its  course.  But  to  form  it  with  their  blood,  to 
cement  historical  testimony  with  human  blood  for  three 
centuries,  is  what  has  never  been  witnessed,  save  on  the 
part  of  Christians  for  Jesus  Christ.  We  were  interrogated 
during  three  centuries,  and  asked  to  declare  who  we  were ; 
we  answered:  Christians.  Then  they  said  to  us:  Blaspheme 
the  name  of  Christ,  and  we  replied:  We  are  Christians. 
They  put  us  to  death  for  this  in  frightful  tortures;  and  in 
the  hands  of  our  executioners  our  last  sigh  exhaled,  as  a 
balm  for  the  dying  and  a  testimony  for  the  living  to  all 
eternity,  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  did  not  die  for 
opinions,  but  for  realities — the  very  name  of  martyr  proves 
it;  and  Pascal  has  well  said:  "  I  believe  in  witnesses  who 
give  the  testimony  of  their  blood."  And,  although  there 
may  be  presumption  in  attempting  to  speak  better  than 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  78 

Pascal,  I  shall,  however,  say  something  better:  I  believe  in 
the  human  race  dying  for  its  faith." 

There,  what  do  you  think  of  it?  Is  it  not  as  satisfactory 
as  it  is  eloquent?  Is  it  not  as  true  as  it  is  persuasive? 
Let  that  testimony  stand  and  feel  that  you  are  standing 
upon  the  rock  that,  as  he  says,  has  been  watered  by  the 
blood  of  Christian  people,  and  then  remembering  that  the 
essence  of  the  Christian  religion  is  the  historic  life  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  that  that  historic  life  produced,  by  the  signifi- 
cance of  its  facts,  faith  in  the  minds  of  the  people  who  had 
to  do  with  Jesus  Christ,  whether  then,  and  so  on  down  to 
the  present  day,  it  is  better  than  the  book  of  St.  Matthew 
to  say  what  the  lecturer  says — that  this  is  all  there  is  in 
Matthew  on  the  subject  of  salvation — not  one  word  about 
believing  anything. 

The  Facts  of  Faith— A  Few  Words  about  "Believing-" 

Early  in  St.  Matthew's  gospel  you-  have  the  visit  of  the 
magi.  They  came  saying,  "  Where  is  He  that  was  born 
King  of  the  Jews?" 

What  was  the  reason  of  their  coming?  They  believed 
Him  to  be  the  King.  They  would  not  have  come  else.  Is 
it  not  true?  It  is  only  a  question  of  fact.  It  is  not  a 
question  of  opinion.  Peter,  James,  John,  and  Andrew  are 
successively  called  by  Him  with  the  words,  "  Follow  me." 
Wllf  do  they  do  it?  Why  do  they  leave  their  nets?  Why 
do  they  leave  their  boats  ?  Why  do  they  leave  their  father 
fUd  hired  servants  and  follow  Him?  Wliy?  A  fact.  Was 
it  because  they  did  not  believe  He  was  the  master?  Why? 
No.  That  would  have  left  them  where  they  were  before. 
It  was  because  they  did  believe  that  He  was  the  master 
that  they  followed  Him. 

The  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  to  which  the  lecture  refers, 
and  from  which  he  quotes,  "By  whom  is  it  received?"  By 
those  who  believe  that  the  speaker  of  that  sermon  was  the 


76  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

true  teacher.  If  He  were  the  true  teacher,  are  we  to  treat 
Him  as  no  scholars  treated  a  teacher  before;  that  is,  to  pick 
and  choose,  and  say,  "  I  take  this  because  I  like  it,  and  I 
refuse  to  take  that  because  I  do  not  like  it  and  do  not 
understand  it?" 

That  is  not  the  way  people  treat  teachers.  It  is  not  the 
way  in  which  you  encourage  your  children  to  treat  a  teacher 
in  the  schools.  It  is  not  the  way  in  which  you  treat  any 
teacher  when  you  read  his  book  or  when  you  listen  to  his 
lectures.  At  the  end  of  that  sermon,  in  the  twenty-fourth 
verse  of  the  seventh  chapter,  lie  says:  "Whosoever  heareth 
these  sayings  of  mine" — a  distinct  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
that  thing — "  and  doeth  them,  I  will  tell  you  to  whom  he 
is  like." 

Doeth  what?  What  he  likes?  No.  Doeth  those  say- 
ings of  mine;  doeth  them  all.  And  it  is  the  true  principle 
that  is  enunciated  in  another  part  of  the  Scripture,  where 
it  is  said:  "Faith  cometh  by  hearing." 

Here  comes  a  leper.  "  Lord,  if  thou  wilt  thou  canst  make 
me  clean." 

What  lies  back  of  that  declaration  except  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  His  power  to  cure  even  leprosy 
which  was  such  a  dire  disease  that  when  Naaman,  afflicted 
with  that  disease,  came  to  the  King  of  Israel  with  a  mes- 
sage from  the  King  of  Syria,  the  King  of  Israel  said :  "  Am 
1  a  God  to  kill  and  make  alive,  that  this  man  dost  send 
unto  me  to  cure  a  man  of  his  leprosy? "  And  yet  here  was 
this  leper.  What  was  the  principle  that  he  had  in  hi& 
heart  except  faith  in  this  name,  this  historic  man,  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  that  He  could  heal? 

Here  is  a  centurion,  and  he  says:  "Lord,  my  servant 
lieth  at  home  sick  of  the  palsy  grievously  tormented."  In 
the  tenth  verse  of  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Matthew  what 
does  the  Lord  say?  The  Lord  says:  "I  tell  you  I  have 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  77 

not  found  so  great  faith,  no  not  in  Israel."     And  yet  there 
is  not  a  word  about  believing  in  anything  or  anybody! 

More  Faith. 

Is  faith  not  belief;  and  in  whom  did  the  centurion  believe 
if  he  did  not  believe  in  Jesus  Christ?  He  comes  to  reprove 
His  disciples,  those  who  had  been  trusting  Him,  and  what 
does  he  say  to  them:  "  Oh,  ye  of  little  faith!  "  If  they  had 
great  faith  then  they  had  great  commendation.  Then  came 
a  number  of  friends  and  they  bring  a  man  sick  of  the 
palsy  and  the  first  word  the  Lord  says  to  him  is :  "  Son,  be 
of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee." 

And  they  begin  to  quarrel  and  say:  "Who  is  this  that 
forgiveth  sins?"  and  thereupon  He  says:  "Which  is  the 
easier  to  say,  '  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,'  or  to  say, '  Rise, 
take  up  thy  bed  and  walk;'  but  that  ye  may  know  that  the 
Son  of  Man  hath  power  on  earth."  He  sayeth  to  the  man 
sick  of  the  palsy,  "  Arise  and  take  up  thy  bed  and  go  to  thine 
house,"  etc.  And  they  say,  "  We  never  saw  it  done  in  that 
fashion." 

What  then?  Didn't  that  lead  to  their  having  faith  in  the 
assertions  that  He  had  made  that  He  had  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins,  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  the  first  step  to- 
ward salvation?  And  yet  there  is  not  a  word  about  faith 
or  believing  in  anybody,  or  believing  in  anything  in  Mat- 
thew except  what  the  lecturer  gave  last  Sunday.  He  called 
Matthew  from  being  a  receiver  of  customs  to  be  an  an  evan- 
gelist by  the  words:  "Follow  me,"  and  when  He  went  and 
eat  down  among  His  friends  they  quarreled,  and  they  said 
to  Him:  "Why  sitteth  thy  master  with  publicans  and  sin- 
ners?" and  He  said:  "I  have  come,  not  to  call  the  right- 
eous but  to  call  sinners  to  repentance."  Can  they  repent  if 
they  do  not  believe  in  Him  who  brings  the  message?  That 
is  the  ground  of  Matthew's  repentance  and  he  followed  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


78  REPL  Y  TO  INGERSOLL'8    NJS  W  LECTURE, 

Here  is  a  rnler  who  comes  and  says:  "  My  little  daughter 
IB  even  now  dead.  Come  and  lay  Thy  hand  upon  her  and 
ehe  shall  live."  What  is  the  meaning  of  it?  Had  he  not 
faith?  And  if  he  had  an  implicit  faith,  in  whom,  I  pray 
you,  had  he  faith  and  what  was  the  character  of  that  faith? 
Why  did  he  trust  Him?  Why,  because  he  had  faith  in  His 
power  to  call  back  even  from  the  dead.  He  gives  a  com- 
mission to  His  apostles  to  go  and  preach.  He  sends  them 
out,  these  twelve,  two  and  two.  What  is  the  ground  of  that 
commission  except  that  they  had  faith  in  Him  who  gave  it 
— believed — and  that  he  had  authority  to  give  that  com- 
mission. Read  it  over  and  see  if  there  is  not  faith  running 
right  through  it  from  beginning  to  end. 

And  here  comes  John  the  Baptist  with  a  message.  He 
says:  "Art  thou  He  that  is  to  come  or  look  we  for  another?" 
And  the  Lord  answered  him  back:  "Yes;"  and  He  says: 
"  Go,  and  tell  each  one  of  the  things  that  ye  have  seen,  and 
aay,  '  Blessed  is  he  who  hath  not  stumbled  in  me.' " 

Well,  if  a  man  is  not  stumbled  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
as  that  poor  lecturer  was  last  Sunday  afternoon — if  a  man 
is  not  stumbled  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  what  is  the  neces- 
sary consequence?  Why,  that  he  believes  in  Him,  is  it  not? 
Jt  is  only  a  question  of  fact ;  not  a  question  of  interpretation, 

Here  again  he  upbraids  the  city  in  which  most  of  His 
mighty  works  are  done.  Why?  Because  they  repented 
aot.  But  what  was  the  ground  of  their  not  repenting? 
Why,  because  they  did  not  believe  it.  Isn't  thai  so?  He 
gives  that  invitation  of  the  eleventh  chapter,  "  Come  unto 
me  all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy-laden  and  I  will  give 
jou  rest."  Who  is  going  to  accept  it?  Those  that  believe 
in  Him  who  gave  it,  and  nobody  else.  Isn't  it  so?  I  ask 
it,  does  He  not  claim  belief  in  Himself  as  the  possessor 
and  enunciator  of  principles  of  abstract  truth,  applying 
them  to  individual  cases?  For  instance,  in  His  treatment 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  70 

of  the  Sabbath  clay.  For  instance,  again,  in  the  question 
of  whether  He  cast  out  devils  by  Beelzebub  or  by  the 
finger  of  God.  Doesn't  He  put  the  matter  right  clearly 
before  them,  so  that  they  must  believe  it  or  refuse  to  believe 
it  in  spite  of  themselves,  when  He  says:  "The  good  tree 
brings  forth  good  fruit  and  the  evil  tree  brings  forth  evil 
fruit?  "  And  you  can't  have  one  kind  of  fruit  on  the  other 
kind  of  tree.  That  is  an  impossibility. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  all  the  parables  in  the  13th 
chapter  of  St.  Matthew  if  they  are  not  a  declaration  of  the 
principles  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  for  the  reception 
of  which  principles  as  being  true  it  is  absolutely  essential 
you  shall  have  faith  and  believe  in  Him  who  thus  enun- 
ciates that  faith.  Is  it  not  so?  Only  a  question  of  fact, 
not  a  question  of  interpretation.  "He  did  not  many 
mighty  works  there."  Why?  Because  of  their  unbelief. 
1  am  only  in  St.  Matthew,  and  yet  there  is  not  a  word 
about  belief !  There  is  not  a  word  about  faith  or  belief  in 
anything  or  anybody,  except  the  things  that  the  lecturer 
qupted,  and  he  never  referred  to  one  of  these  things. 

The  young  woman  of  Cana  comes  to  Him,  and  what  does 
He  say?  "  O,  woman,  great  is  thy  faith.  Be  it  unto  thee 
even  as  thou  wilt."  It  is  a  fact.  Here  is  about  the  center 
of  the  gospel,  and  here  comes  something  of  a  crisis.  We 
would  be  content  to  stake  it  all  upon  this  one  thing  :  "The 
Lord  said  to  His  disciples,  His  Apostles,  when  they  came 
into  the  town  of  Caesarea,  *  Who  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son 
of  Man,  am? 'and  they  answering  said,  "Some  say  that  Thou 
art  Eli  as;  some  Jeremias,  and  some,  one  of  the  prophets," 
and  He  said  unto  them:  "But  who  say  ye  that  I  am?" 
and  Peter,  answering  said,  "  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God."  Now  just  take  it,  and  look  at  it,  and  think 
of  it,  and  meditate  upon  it,  and  come  to  a  conclusion,  and 
tell  me  honestly,  does  that  imply  or  does  it  not,  whole- 


80  7? EPL  Y  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NE  W  LECTURE, 

souled,  unreserved,  and  absolute  allegiance  of  Peter,  in  his 
whole  being,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  as  a  human  creature,  to 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  Messiah 
and  Son  of  the  living  God.  Answer  it  is  a  fact.  And  yet 
there  is  not  a  word  about  believing  anything  or  anybody  in 
Matthew.  He  goes  up  to  what  is  called  the  Mount  of 
Transfiguration,  and  there  comes  a  voice,  and  the  voice 
says  :  "This  is  My  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well 

•J  «/ 

pleased.  Hear  ye  Him."  And  not  believe?  And  not  trust 
what  He  says?  That  voice  is  to  come  and  to  command  the 
ascent  of  those  who  hear  to  propositions  which  they  are 
perfectly  familiar  with;  to  declarations  that  they  learned 
when  they  were  in  a  rabbi's  school.  God  Almighty  is  to 
speak  from  heaven,  and  to  give  his  authority  to  the  words 
that  His  dearly  beloved  Son,  manifest  in  the  flesh,  shall 
utter  when  those  words  are  nothing  but  what  anybody  else 
has  uttered.  Is  that  reasonable?  I  trow  not. 

The  lecturer  is  very  fond  of  little  children.  Thank  God 
for  that  !  And  he  refers  to  Christ's  action  toward  little 
children,  and  the  words  that  He  speaks,  repeating  them. 
One  of  the  things  he  says  is  this,  *•  "Whosoever  shall  offend 
one  of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in  Me" — it  is  in 
Matthew;  it  is  not  in  Mark,  or  Luke,  or  John.  •  It  ig 
Matthew,  which  has  nothing  about  belief  in  it.  It  ;s  a  fact 
The  Lord  says,  in  speaking  to  them,  and  in  encouraging 
them  to  pray  :  "  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
in  My  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  ot  them."  How  are 
you  going  to  apprehend  that  except  by  faith?  He  says 
again:  "The  Son  of  Man  came  to  give  His  life  as  a  ransom 
ior  many  ;  but,"  says  the  lecturer,  "  I  don't  believe  in  for- 
giveness except  on  the  principle  that,  if  you  forgive  other 
people,  God  will  forgive  you."  "  If  ye  have  faith,  ye  should 
be  able  to  do"  so  and  so,  says  the  Lord.  His  great  con- 
demnation of  those  who  refused  Him  wa>:  "  The  publicans 


YB  DR.  COURTNEY.  81 

and  the  harlots  go  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  before  you,  for 
they  repented;  but  ye,  when  ye  had  seen  Him,  afterward 
did  not  repent,  that  ye  did  not  believe  Him." 

And  yet  there  is  not  a  word  about  faith  in  Matthew.  You 
come  down  to  the  evidence  of  the  institution  of  the  supper, 
and  the  Lord  says :  "  This  is  My  blood  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  was  shed  for  many  for  the  redemption  of  sins." 
And  I  am  to  wait  until  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  in  one  of  the  greatest  but  the  youngest  cities  of 
the  world,  to  be  told  that  I  am  to  accept  the  unsupported 
statement  of  an  individual  against  the  assertion  in  the  most 
solemn  moment  of  the  life  of  Him  whom  I  believe  to  be 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

You  come  to  the  last  verses  of  the  last  chapter  of  St. 
Matthew,  and  what  do  they  say?  "All  power  is  given  unto 
Me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  thatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,  and,  so,  I  am 
with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  I 
believe  it. 

The  Athanasian  Creed. 

The  lecturer,  in  his  address,  refers  to  the  hymn,  "iuit>- 
cumque  Yult,"  commonly  called  "  The  Creed  of  St.  Athan- 
asius."  It  is  fortunate  for  him  that  he  did  not  quote  the 
Apostles'  or  Nicene  Creeds,  as  they  are  almost  wholly  a 
recitation  of  facts.  You  remember  that :  "  I  believe  in 
God,  the  Father  Almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and 
in  Jesus  Christ  His  only  begotten  Son,  our  Lord,  who  wa» 
conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead,  and 
buried,  descended  into  hell,  and  on  the  third  day  rose  again, 
and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of 
God  the  Father,  and  from  thence  shall  come  again  to  judge 

6 


82  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

both  the  quick  and  the  dead."  It  is  all  facts.  It  is  simply 
a  recitation  of  facts; -and  facts  are  stubborn  things.  The 
difference  between  the  so-called  Athanasian  creed  and  those 
two  others  is  that,  while  they  are  simply  a  compilation  of 
facts,  it  is  a  compilation  of  deductions  from  those  facts, 
expressing  the  Christian  doctrine  in  the  language  of  scien- 
tific definition. 

Now  you  remember  that,  and  then  think  of  the  way  in 
which  the  lecturer  treats  it.  To  understand  any  science — 
this  is  not  what  he  says,  but  what  I  am  saying, — to  under- 
stand any  science  it  is  necessary  to  have  studied  it.  The 
definition  respecting  it  will  appear  important  to  those  who 
are  learned,  unimportant  to  those  who  are  shallow,  and 
gibberish  to  the  ignorant,  and  yet  this  is  the  way  in 
which  the  lecturer  treats  this  creed.  I  will  only  give  you 
one  sample.  I  dare  not  give  you  more.  I  should  consider 
it  blasphemy  to  go  through  it  from  beginning  to  end.  He 
quotes  the  early  part  of  it,  "  We  worship  one  God  in  trin- 
ity, and  trinity  in  unity,  dividing  the  substance,"  and  then 
he  says:  "  Of  course  you  understand  how  that's  done,  and 
you  see  what  a  predicament  that  would  leave  the  Deity  in 
if  you  divided  the  substance." 

Now  take  physical  science,  and  of  it  the  one  department 
of  gravitation,  and  suppose  that  I,  before  a  popular  audi- 
ence like  that  gathered  last  Sunday  afternoon,  which  had 
received  no  technical  instruction,  in  order  to  show  that  the 
law  of  gi-avitation  is  an  absurdity,  should  quote  the  propo- 
sition, "  Any  two  masses  in  the  universe  attract  each  other 
with  a  force  which  varies  according  to  thee  squarnvere  si  of 
the  distance,"  and  say:  "Of  course  you  understand  how 
that's  done."  You  see  how  awkward  it  would  be  for  the 
law  of  gravitation  if  you  were  to  treat  it  by  no  other 
method  than  that.  Would  I  be  dealing  fairly  with  it? 
Should  I  not  betray  one  of  two  things — either  my  own 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  83 

animus  or  my  ignorance?  It  is  only  a  question,  not  a 
question  of  interpretation.  Keep  it  down  to  that  and 
remember  in  all  that  I  say  I  say  exactly  what  the  lecturer 
said  last  Sunday  afternoon.  He  said  that  he  had  no  quarrel 
with  Methodists  or  Presbyterians  or  Baptists.  I  suppose 
he  would  also  have  said  Episcopalians;  but  he  quarreled 
with  Methodism  and  the  principle  of  the  Baptists,  and 
Presbyterianism,  and  Episcopalianism,  and  all  those  things. 
I  have  no  quarrel  with  the  lecturer  himself  whatever,  but  I 
do  quarrel  with  his  principles,  and  I  believe  in  my  soul 
that  they  are  false  from  beginning  to  end,  and,  if  he  will 
pardon  me  for  saying  so,  shallow.  I  think  they  are  tricky. 
I  think  the  way  in  which  the  subject  of  the  Athanasian 
Creed  last  Sunday  afternoon  was  treated  is  worthy  of  the 
severest  and  calmest  reprobation.  And  I  will  give  you  the 
realon  why  I  thimk  so:  And  this  is  the  man  to  whom  we  are 
all  to  listen,  whom  we  are  to  believe,  rather  than  the  wise 
and  good  of  all  the  ages,  and  rather  than  He  of  whom  the 
Church  has  ever,  all  along,  been  bearing  us  testimony. 

John  Stuart  Mill  at  Variance  With  Ingersoll  on  the  Human  Will. 
There  is  one  thing  that  he  said  last  Sunday  afternoon 
that  has  often  been  said  before,  but  it  is  very  specious,  and 
I  want  to  point  out  where  it  is  wrong.  This  is  what  he 
said:  "You  cannot  believe  as  you  wish.  You  must  believe 
ae  you  must.  You  hear  evidence,  for  and  against,  and  the 
integrity  of  the  soul  stands  at  the  scales  and  tells  which 
side  rises  and  which  falls."  I  say  this  were  all  well  enough 
if  the  soul  stood  in  perfect  integrity,  but  many  things  come 
in  to  prevent  the  soul  being  impartial.  If  I  were  to  quote 
a  sentiment  against  Col.  Ingersoll  which  was  expressed  by 
one  who  was  considered  orthodox,  I  suppose  he  would  put 
it  on  one  side  on  account  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  person 
who  said  it;  and  the  more  orthodox  the  individual  the 
more  resolutely  he  would  refuse  to  accept  it.  But  I  pre- 


.84  REPLY  TO  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

sume  he  will  not  quarrel  with  the  authority  that  I  shall 
bring  forward.  Certainly  no  clearer-headed  and  no  colder 
man  has  existed  in  this  century  than  John  Stuart  Mill.  In 
his  autobiography,  page  169,  this  is  what  he  says — he  is 
speaking  of  the  time  when  the  Benthamite  doctrine  of 
necessity  broke  down.  He  says:  "I  say  that,  though  our 
character  is  formed  by  circumstances,  our  own  desires  can 
do  much  to  shape  those  circumstances,  and  that  what  is 
really  inspiring  and  ennobling  in  the  doctrine  of  free  will 
is  the  conviction  that  we  have  real  power  over  the  forma- 
tion of  our  own  character;  that  our  will,  by  influencing 
some  of  our  circumstances,  can  modify  some  of  our  future 
habits  or  capabilities  of  willing." 

Now  see  what  he  says — ana  remember  that  he  was  about 
the  most  exact  user  of  language  that  this  century  has  pro- 
duced. He  says  that  "  Our  own  desires  can  do  much  to 
shape  those  circumstances,  and,  therefore,  if  our  desires 
happen  to  yield  to  the  bias  toward  evil,  which  we  must  con- 
fess, whatever  kind  of  the  ology  we  have  adopted,  as  exist- 
ing in  our  nature,  then  that  warps  all  our  future  judgment, 
and  leads  us  to  chocfse  the  evil  instead  of  the  good.  And 
when  when  we  stand  at  the  scales  and  see  one  side  rise  and 
another  side  fall,  we  get  an  obliquity  of  vision  which  causes 
us  to  assert  sometimes  that  evil  is  good  and  good  is  evil ; 
put  bitter  for  sweet  and  sweet  for  bitter."  That  is  the 
answer  I  give  to  the  assertion  that  "  you  cannot  believe  as 
you  wish,  and  you  must  believe  as  you  must." 

The  Gospel  of  Good  Cooking— Does  "  Bob  "  Understand  It? 

In  conclusion  of  the  lecture  the  lecturer  said  he  would 
preach  the  "  gospel  of  good  fellowship — friends  all  around, 
the  observance  of  the  laws  of  health,"  into  which  he  inter- 
jected the  remark  that  "  it  is  a  thousand  times  better  to 
know  how  to  cook  food  than  it  is  to  understand  any  theology 
in  the  world.  I  believe  the  lecturer  makes  his  living  by  an 


BY  DR.  COURTNEY.  85 

intellectual  profession.  Does  he  think  that  it  is  a  thousand 
times  more  important  that  he  should  know  how  to  cook 
food,  than  it  is  to  understand  any  system  of  law  in  the 
world  ?  And  if  he  does  not  think  that,  then  you  must  take 
this  remark  about  theology  for  what  it  is  worth,  according 
to  his  standpoint. 

He  would  have  no  forgiveness  for  any  one,  out  absolute 
justice.  He  would  have  a  gospel  of  intelligence.  He 
would  say :  "  Be  honest,  be  forgiving,  be  merciful  and 
stand  upon  those  as  rocks."  Now  I  ask  you  where  do  you 
get  an  example  and  ground  of  good  fellowship  that  is  equal 
to  that  which  we  have  in  Jesus  Christ?  I  ask  you  with 
regard  to  the  gospel  of  intelligence  where  you  have  such 
teaching  of  principles  of  intelligence  as  in  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  Christ?  Who  is  the  teacher  commanding  honesty  ^ 
pardon,  and  mercy,  except  Jesus  Christ?  And  then,  are 
we  to  refuse  Him  our  allegiance  who  comes  and  proclaims 
Himself  a  ransom  for  us  from  the  condemnation  and  power 
of  some  one  through  whom  we  can  be  forgiven  and  so 
redeemed  that  we  go  forth  to  sin  no  more,  and  turn  around 
'end  contemptuously  decline  pardon,  and  discard  the  redemp- 
tion which  we  so  urgently  need?  Go  and  preach  that  gos- 
pel through  tbe  wide  world — I  mean  the  gospel  he  enun- 
ciated last  Sunday  afternoon — and  see  where  you  will  have 
any  hearts  that  will  rise  up  and  hate  the  evil  that  is  in 
themselves,  and  not  only  that  has  brought  trouble 
upon  them  by  the  evil  that  they  have  done  toward 
other  people,  but  hate  the  evil  that  is  in  themselves,  and 
learn  to  believe  in  that  God  and  Father  who  is  the  source 
of  all  piety,  as  He  is  the  source  of  all  holiness,  and  whose 
life  shall  testify  to  the  reality  of  the  change  that  has  taken 
place  in  transforming  them  from  all  that  is  evil  into  all 
that  is  good,  and  all  that  is  lovely,  and  all  that  is  honest, 
and  all  that  is  of  good  report.  Preach  it,  and  see  if  yon 


;  0  REPLY  TO  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE. 

\\  ili  get  any  such  result  as  that  which  we  do  get,  and  have 
got  all  the  ages  along  from  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  of 
our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ 

My  dear  brethren  and  sisters,  I  have  detained  you  all 
this  long  time,  merely  with  taking  up  some  points  of  that 
long  lecture  last  Sunday  afternoon  and  endeavoring  to  show 
you  how  utterly  untrustworthy  the  principles  are  upon 
which  that  lecture  goes,  and  how  little  you  have  to  fear, 
and  I  believe  it  in  my  soul  you  have  but  little  to  fear  from 
any  such  attacks  made  upon  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  and 
Savior  Jesus  Christ,  or  the  trustworthiness  of  the  record  of 
this  holy  book. 

I  must  not  so  far  trespass  upon  your  patience  as  to  keep 
you  longer.  I  have  been  speaking  for  nearly  an  hour  now, 
but  I  had  hoped  to  have  answered  the  question,  "  What 
must  I  do  to  be  saved?"  this  morning.  It  has  taken  me 
longer  than  I  expected.  I  will  answer  that  question  to- 
night. I  will  say  what  I  have  to  say  on  the  question, 
"What  must  I  do  to  be  saved?"  and  endeavor  to  show  you 
that  the  answer  which  the  Apostle  gave,  to  that  question, 
asked  by  the  trembling  jailer  of  Philippi,  in  the  midnight, 
is  a  true  and  a  reasonable  and  a  trustworthy  answer,  and  I 
trust  to  show  that  it  is  so. 


OF 


The  Bishop  Believes  the  Colonel  is  Making  "  True  Progress." 
We  have  been  treated  quite  recently  to  an  exegesis  of  the 
New  Testament  by  the  well-known  author  of  the  lecture  on 
"The  Gods." 

This  congregation  will  acknowledge  with  me  that  there 
is  almost  an  infinity  of  distance  between  that  atheistic  pro- 
duction and  the  last  lecture  of  Col.  Ingersoll.  He  is  cer- 
tainly moving  forward  with  gigantic  strides,  and  although 
the  last  lecture  was  full  of  the  most  objectionable  sentences 
it  was  such  an  improvement  over  all  his  previous  eiforts  in 
the  recognition  of  certain  Christian  -truths,  and  in  his 
efforts  to  draw  a  distinction  between  Christ  and  His  pro- 
fessed followers,  that  he  ought  to  be  taken  by  the  hand  and 
encouraged  to  go  still  further  in  the  way  of  light  and  true 
progress. 

I  am  glad  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  not  lost  in  the  treacherous 
quicksands  of  Straussian  unbelief.  He  evidently  does  not 
believe  that  the  Church  created  Christ.  He  does  homage 
in  his  way  to  this  central  character  of  all  history.  He  has 
too  much  common  sense  to  believe  that  such  men  as  the 
Apostles,  or  any  other  men,  could  invent  this  glorious  per- 
sonage. He  knows  that  such  a  miracle  would  infinitely 
transcend  all  other  miracles  put  together.  I  should  greatly 

87 


88        REPLY  TO  INQERSOLVS  NEW  LECTURE, 

enjoy  hearing  him  turn  his  brilliant  powers  of  banter  and 
sarcasm  upon  Strauss  and  all  his  school,  who  endeavored  to 
evolve  all  the  stupendous  facts  of  Christianity  out  of  the 
subjective  consciousness  of  Christians  in  succeeding  cen- 
turies. I  hope  to  have  that  pleasure  yet. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  is  in  error  when  he  says:  "  This  Testament 
was  not  written  for  hundreds  of  years  after  the  Apostles 
were  dust.  *  *  *  They  depended  upon  the  inaccuracy 
of  legend,  and  for  centuries  these  doctrines  were  blown 
about  by  the  inconstant  winds." 

The  Facts  in  the  Case. 

Now  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case  ?  When  the  Church 
entered  the  second  century,  the  year  101,  or  very  near  that 
period,  she  had  the  New  Testament  in  her  hands. 

A  friend  has  called  my  attention  to  a  communication 
from  an  agnostic  champion  of  Col.  Ingersoll  in  the  Chicago 
Tribune,  which  was  intended  to  forestall  any  answers  the 
Chicago  clergymen  might  make.  He  says  :  "  The  orthodox 
ministers  will  say,  no  doubt,  that  there  is  an  unbroken  line 
of  evidence  running  back  to  the  Apostolic  age  as  to  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  Gospels.  This  is  not  true."  He  then  states 
that  the  Rev.  Brooke  Foss  Wescott,  D.  D.,  in  his  "  History 
of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,"  page  11,  says  "  that  it 
is  an  error  to  suppose  that  there  is  such  an  unbroken  chain 
of  evidence;  that  a  few  letters  of  consolation  and  warning, 
two  or  three  apologies  addressed  to  heathen,  a  controversy 
with  a  Jew,  a  vision,  and  a  scanty  gleaming  of  fragments 
of  lost  works,  comprise  all  Christian  literature  to  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  "  (that  is,  to  150  A.  D.). 

This  is  simply  another  specimen  of  the  special  pleading 
so  marked  in  the  treatment  of  these  important  questions. 

Dr.  "Wescott  in  this  quotation  refers  to  the  whole  canon 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  not  to  the  four  gospels.  "  The 
evidence  of  the  earliest  Christian  writers  is  not  only  un- 


BY  BISHOP  FALLOWS.  80 

critical  and  casual,  but  also  fragmentary,"  he  says,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  entire  canon.  The  point  he  makes  is,  that  it 
needed  a  more  critical  and  literary  period  to  gather  together 
the  records  which  had  been  made  in  the  earliest  times — the 
Apostolical  times — and  determine  their  canonicity.  The 
whole  aim  of  his  book  is  to  show  just  the  opposite  of  what 
this  agnostic  defamer  by  a  garbled  extract  makes  him  as- 
sert— viz.:  that  there  is  an  unbroken  line  of  evidence  from 
the  present  time  to  the  Apostolic  age  as  to  the  authenticity 
of  the  gospels,  and  also  of  the  other  canonically  received 
portions  of  the  New  Testament. 

This  uncritical,  casual,  and  fragmentary  evidence  of  these 
early  writers,  along  with  the  critical,  close,  and  full  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  in  succeeding  years,  from  a  historic 
highway  on  which  we  may  triumphantly  march  over  all  the 
centuries,  first  to  the  upper  chamber  where  the  Pentecostal 
spirit  inaugurated  the  visible  Church  for  the  nations,  to  the 
Cross  of  Calvary,  and  to  the  Mount  of  Beatitudes.  Our 
Divine  Lord  wrote  no  recorded  word,  but  He  wrote  Him- 
self upon  the  imperishable  tablets  of -His  disciples'  hearts. 
They  were  His  loving  epistles.  It  was  their  sole  supreme 
business  to  make  known  to  the  world  what  He  had  said, 
done,  and  suffered.  Eye-witnesses  and  heart-witnesses, 
they  went  about  preaching  the  facts  and  teaching  the  truths 
of  Christianity.  Their  mode  of  communication  was  at  first, 
perhaps,  purely  oral.  Undoubtedly  their  words  in  some 
instances  were  taken  down  in  writing  by  the  hearers,  as 
Veil  as  treasured  up  in  their  remembrance.  These  records, 
brief  and  fragmentary,  multiplied.  Churches  began  to 
multiply.  In  the  year  64  A.  D.,  Tacitus  says  the  Chris- 
tians at  Rome  were  a  vast  multitude.  Pliny,  in  112  A.  D., 
in  a.  letter  to  Trajan,  refers  to  their  great  nnmber  in  the 
remote  province  of  Bithynia.  Irenseus  and  Tertullian,  150- 
180  A.  D.,  state  that  the  Christian  brethren  were  thickly 


90  REPLY  TO  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

scattered  over  the  known  world.  Out  of  this  original  oral 
Gospel,  and  these  written  records  of  the  Apostles'  teach- 
ing, the  first  three  Gospels  were  constructed.  The  un_ 
broken  tradition  of  the  Church  is  that  they  were  written  by 
the  persons  whose  names  they  bear. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  the  presumption  of 
a  doubt  in  the  case  of  Matthew.  The  uniform  testimony 
is  that  he  wrote  his  gospel  in  the  Hebrew  or  the  Syrio- 
Chaldaic  language.  No  testimony  could  be  more  complete. 
The  gospel  we  have  is  in  Greek.  We  do  not  know  who 
translated  it;  whether  it  was  Matthew  himself  or  some 
other  person.  There  was  an  urgent  need  of  such  transla 
tion,  for  Greek  was  the  language  of  the  world's  literature 
and  the  medium  of  communication  between  different 
nations.  (Mr.  Ingersoll  made  a  woful  lapse  when  he 
attempted  a  witticism  upon  the  alleged  ignorance  of  Greek 
by  the  Evangelists.)  The  unbroken  line  of  evidence  is 
that  the  gospel  of  Matthew  that  we  he  have  is  either  the 
gospel  written  in  Greek  by  that  Evangelist  or  a  translation 
by  some  other  person  made  while  the  Evangelist  was 
living. 

Not  the  slightest  shade  of  suspicion,  so  far  as  we  know, 
was  thrown  .upon, the  genuineness  of  this  gospel  as  we 
have  it 

So  far  as  known,  there  are  not  fifteen  manuscripts  of 
Plato  extant.  There  are  not  as  many  of  Herodotus.  Not 
one  of  them  is  older  than  the  ninth  century. 

Nearly  a  thousand  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
have  been  consulted  by  critics,  and  at  least  fifty  of  them  are 
more  than  a  thousand  years  old,  and  some  are  over  1,500 
years  old. 

The  most  competent  scholars  fix  the  date  of  the  Syriac 
version  within  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  that  is 
within  150  A.  D. 


BY  BISHOP  FALLOWS.  9! 

The  Codex  Vaticanus  was  written  about  tlie  year  300  A. 
IX,  and  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  about  '325  A.  D.  The 
Codex  Sinaiticus  about  30',.  A.  D.,  or  a  little  earlier. 

Of  a  portion  of  the  three  last  manuscripts  I  give  as  near 
as  possible,  in  the  illustrations  before  you,  a  fac-simile  on 
an  enlarged  scale. 

Irenseus  in  his  youth  had  been  a  companion  of  Polycafp, 
the  disciple  of  St.  John.  He  makes  400  quotations  from 
the  Four  Gospels. 

Tertullian  (A.  D.  160)  gives  about  200  quotations. 

Fabian  (A.  D.  190)  gives  a  "  Harmony  of  the  Foui 
Gospels." 

How  Celsus,    the  Ingersoll  of  the  Second  Century,  Did  a  Great  Work  fox 

the  Church. 

Celsus  was  the  Robert  Ingersoll  of  the  second  century. 
He  was  an  acute  man,  a  witty  and  eloquent  conversational- 
ist, rather  fond  of  stretching  facts  and  principles  when  it 
served  his  purpose,  and  not  caring  always  to  know  the 
facts.  He  lived  a  little  more  than  130  years  after  the 
ascension  of  the  Divine  Founder  of  Christianity.  He  at- 
tacked the  Christians  of  his  age  with  banter,  ridicule  and 
sophisms.  He  hunted  up  every  difficulty  in  the  Christians' 
pathway,  and  magnified  all  seeming  discrepancies  iiito 
irreconcilable  contradictions.  His  attacks  upon  the  Chris- 
tian system  live  only  in  the  famous  reply  to  them  made  by 
Origen.  This  unbeliever,  although  he  caused  great  an- 
noyance to  the  believers  in  Christ  living  in  his  day,  and 
seemed  to  many  to  be  disturbing  the  foundations  of  the 
Christian  faith,  rendered  more  real  service  to  Christianity 
than  any  father  of  undisputed  orthodoxy  in  the  Church.  He 
admits  all  the  grand  facts  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  as 
they  were  preached  by  the  Apostles,  and  contained  in  their 
acknowledged  writings,  for  the  sake  of  opposing  them.  He 
makes  in  his  attacks  eighty  quotations  from  the  'New  Tes- 


02          REPLY  TO  INGER80LLS  NEW  LECTURE, 

£tment,  and  appeals  to  it  as  containing  the  sacred  writings 
*of  Christians,  universally  received  by  them  as  credible  and 
Divine.  , 

He  is,  therefore,  the  very  best  witness  we  can  summon 
tto  prove  that  the  New  Testament  "was  not  written  hun- 
dreds of  years  after  the  Apostles  were  dust;"  but  in  less 
than  a  century  and  a  half  had  been  received  by  the  Chris- 
tian Church  all  over  the  world.  He  expressly  quotes  both 
the  synoptical  gospels,  as  they  are  termed  (the  first  three 
gospels),  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

It  was  stated  in  the  Pan-Presbyterian  Council  at  Phila- 
delphia, last  Friday,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Humphrey,  a  gentle- 
man whom  I  know  to  be  profound  and  scholarly,  "that 
while  the  Bible  contains  the  names  of  about  four  thousand 
persons  and  places,  in  not  a  single  instance  had  modern 
discovery,  through  explorations  in  ancient  places,  shown 
one  of  the  four  thousand  names  to  have  been  a  myth  or  one 
of  the  mini  to  have  been  misplaced."  I  can  imagine  I 
hear  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  emphatic  way,  saying,  "  I  like 
that;  good.  A  Bible  that  is  so  true  to  historic  fact 
demands  my  attention.  It  is  a  proof  presumptive  that  the 
gospel  records  are  true." 

. 


IKGERSOLL'S  NEW  DEPARTURE. 


HIS   LECTURE    ENTITLED    ""WHAT    SHALL   WE    DO 
TO  B&  SAVED?" 


Delivered  in  McVicker's  Theatre,  Chicago,  Sept.  19,  1880. 


[From  the  Chicago  Times,  Verbatim  Report,] 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:^  Fear  is  the  dungeon  of  the  mind, 
and  superstition  is  a  dagger  with  which  hypocrisy  assassinates 
the  soul.J  Courage  is  liberty.  I  am  in  favor  of  absolute  freedom 
of  thought.  In  the  realm  of  the  mind  every  one  is  a  monarch. 
Every  one  is  robed,  sceptered,  and  crowned,  and  every  one  wears 
the  purple  of  authority.  I  belong  to  the  republic  of  intellectual 
liberty,  and  only  those  are  good  citizens  of  that  republic  who  de- 
pend upon  reason  and  upon  persuasion,  and  only  those  are 
traitors  who  resort  to  brute  force. 

Now,  I  beg  of  you  all  to  forget  just  for  a  few  moments  that  you 
are  Methodists  or  Baptists  or  Catholics  or  Presbyterians,  and  let 
us  for  an  hour  or  two  remember  only  that  we  are  men  and  women, 
And  allow  me  to  say  "man"  and  "woman"  are  the  highest 
titles  that  can  be  bestowed  upon  humanity.  "Man"  and 
"  woman."  And  let  us  if  possible  banish  all  fear  from  the  mind. 
Do  not  imagine  that  there  is  some  being  in  the'infinite  expanse 
who  is  not  willing  that  every  man  and  woman  should  think  for 
himself  and  herself.  Do  no  not  imagine  that  there  is  any  being 
who  would  give  to  his  children  the  holy  torch  of  reason  and  then 
damn  them  for  following  where  the  holy  light  led.  Let  us  have 
courage. 

Priests  have  invented  a  crime  called  "  blasphemy,"  and  behind 

[ii 


3  INOERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

that  crime  hypocrisy  has  crouched  for  thousands  of  years.  There 
is  but  one  blasphemy,  and  that  is  injustice.  There  is  but  0119 
worship,  and  that  is  justice! 

You  need  not  fear  the  anger  of  a  God  whom  you  cannot  injure. 
Rather  fear  to  injure  your  fellow-men.  Do  not  be  afraid  of  :i 
Berime  you  cannot  commit.  Rather  be  afraid  of  the  one  that  you 
Hiay  commit. 

There  was  a  Jewish  gentleman  went  into  a  restaurant  to  get  his 
dinner,  and  the  devil  of  temptation  whispered  in  his  ear:  "Eat 
some  bacon." 

He  knew  if  there  was  anything  in  the  universe  calculated  to 
excite  the  wrath  of  the  Infinite  Being,  who  made  every  shining 
star,  it  was  to  see  a  gentleman  eating  bacon.  He  knew  it,  and  he 
knew  the  Infinite  Being  was  looking,  and  that  he  was  the  Infinite 
Eavesdropper  of  the  universe.  But  his  appetite  got  the  better  of 
his  conscience,  as  it  often  has  with  us  all,  and  he  ate  that  bacon. 
He  knew  it  was  wrong.  When  he  went  into  that  restaurant  the 
weather  was  delightful,  the  sky  was  as  blue  as  June,  and  when  he 
came  out  the  sky  was  covered  with  angry  clouds,  the  lightning 
leaping  from  one  to  the  other,  and  the  earth  shaking  beneath  the 
voice  of  the  thunder.  He  went  back  into  that  restaurant  with  a 
face  as  white  as  milk,  and  he  said  to  one  of  the  keepers: 

"  My  God,  did  you  ever  hear  such  a  fuss  about  a  little  piece  of 
bacon  ?" 

As  long  as  we  harbor  such  opinions  of  Infinity ;  as  long  as  we 
imagine  the  heavens  to  be  filled  with  such  tyranny,  so  long  the 
sons  of  men  will  be  cringing,  intellectual  cowards.  Let  us  think, 
and  let  us  honestly  express  our  thought. 

Do  not  imagine  for  a  moment  that  I  think  people  who  disagree 
with  me  are  bad  people.  I  admit,  and  I  cheerfully  admit,  that  a 
very  large  proportion  of  mankind  and  a  very  large  majority,  a  vast 
number  are  reasonably  honest.  I  believe  that  most  Christians 
believe  what  they  teach ;  that  most  ministers  are  endeavoring  to 
make  this  world  better.  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  better  than  they 
are.  It  is»an  intellectual  question.  It  is  a  question,  first,  6f  in- 
tellectual liberty,  and  after  that,  a  question  to  be  settled  at  the  bar 
of  human  reason.  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  better  than  they  are. 
Probably  I  am  a  good  deal  worse  than  many  of  them,  but  that  is 
not  the  question.  The  question  is:  "  Bad  as  I  am,  have  I  a  right 
to  think?"  And  I  think  I  have,  for  two  reasons. 

First,  I  can't  help  it.    And  secondly,  I  like  it.    The  whole  ques 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?"  3 

tion  is  right  at  a  point.  If  I  have  not  a  right  to  express  my 
thoughts,  who  has? 

"Oh"  they  say,  "we  will  allow  you,  we  will  not  burn  you." 

"All  right ;  why  won't  you  burn  me  ?" 

"Because  we  think  a  decent  man  will  allow  others  to  think  and 
to  express  his  thought." 

"Then  the  reason  you  do  not  persecute  me  for  my  thought  is 
that  you  believe  it  would  be  infamous  in  you !" 

"Yes." 

"And  yet  you  worship  a  God  who  will,  as  you  declare,  punish 
me  forever." 

The  next  question  then  is :  Can  I  commit  a  sin  against  God  by 
thinking?  If  God  did  not  intend  I  should  think,  why  did  He  give 
me  a  "thinker."  Now,  then,  we  have  got  what  they  call  the  Chris- 
tian system  of  religion,  and  thousands  of  people  wonder  how  lean 
be  wicked  enough  to  attack  that  system. 

There  are  many  good  things  about  it,  and  I  shall  never  attack 
anything  that  I  believe  to  be  good!  I  shall  never  fear  to  attack 
anything  I  honestly  believe  to  be  wrong !  "We  have,  I  say,  what 
they  call  the  Christian  religion,  and,  I  find,  just  in  proportion  that 
nations  have  been  religious,  just  in  the  proportion  they  have  gone 
back  to  barbarism.  I  find  that  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy  are  the  three 
worst  nations  in  Europe ;  I  find  that  the  nation  nearest  infidel  is 
the  most  prosperous — France. 

And  so  I  say  there  can  be  no  danger  in  the  exercise  of  absolute 
intellectual  freedom.  I  find  among  ourselves  the  men  who  think 
at  least  as  good  as  those  who  do  not.  We  have,  I  say,  a  Christian 
system,  and  that  system  is  founded  upon  what  they  are  pleased  to 
call  the  "New  Testament."  "Who  wrote  the  New  Testament  ?  I 
don't  know.  "Who  does  know  ?  Nobody ! 

We  have  found  some  fifty-two  manuscripts  containing  portions 
of  the  New  Testament.  Some  of  those  manuscripts  leave  out  five 
or  six  books— many  of  them.  Others  more ;  others  less.  No  two 
of  these  manuscripts  agree.  Nobody  knows  who  wrote  these 
manuscripts.  They  are  all  written  in  Greek;  the  disciples  of 
•Christ/ knew  only  Hebrew.  Nobody  ever  saw,  so  far  as  we  know, 
one  of  the  original  Hebrew  manuscripts.  Nobody  ever  saw  any- 
body who  had  seen  anybody  who  had  heard  of  anybody  that  had 
seen  anybody  that  had  ever  seen  one  of  the  original  Hebrew  man- 
uscripts. No  doubt  the  clergy  of  your  city  have  told  you  these 
facts  thousands  of  times,  and  they  will  be  obliged  to  me  for  having 


4  INUSRSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

repeated  them  once  more.  These  manuscripts  are  written  in  what 
are  called  capitalG  reek  letters.  Tluy  are  called  Uncial  charac- 
ters ;  and  the  New  Testament  was  not  divided  into  chapters  and 
rerses,  even,  until  the  year  of  grace  1551.  Kecollect  it. 

In  the  original  the  manuscripts  and  gospels  are  signed  by  no- 
body. The  epistles  are  addressed  to  nobody ;  and  they  are  signed 
by  the  same  person.  All  the  addresses,  all  the  pretended  ear- 
marks showing  to  whom  they  are  written  and  by  whom  they  are 
written  are  simply  interpolations,  and  eveiybody  who  has  studied 
the  subject  knows  it. 

It  is  further  admitted  that  even  these  manuscripts  have  not 
been  properly  translated,  and  they  have  a  syndicate  now  making 
a  new  translation ;  and  I  suppose  that  I  cannot  tell  whether  I 
really  believe  the  Testament  or  not  until  I  see  that  new  trans- 
lation. 

You  must  remember,  also,  one  other  thing.  Christ  never  wrote 
a  solitary  word  of  the  New  Testament— not  one  word.  There  is 
an  account  that  he  once  stooped  and  wrote  something  in  the  sand, 
but  that  has  not  been  preserved.  He  never  told  anybody  to  write 
a  word.  He  never  said :  "  Matthew,  remember  this.  Mark,  don't 
forget  to  put  that  down.  Luke,  be  sure  that  in  your  gospel  you 
have  this.  John,  don't  forget  it."  Not  one  word.  And  it  has 
always  seemed  to  me  that  a  Being  coming  from  another  world, 
with  a  message  of  infinite  importance  to  mankind,  should  at  least 
have  verified  that  message  by  his  own  signature. 

Why  was  nothing  written  ?  I  will  tell  you.  In  my  judgment 
they  expected  the  end  of  the  world  in  a  very  few  days.  That  gen- 
eration was  not  to  pass  away  until  the  heavens  should  be  rolled  up 
as  a  scroll,  and  until  the  earth  should  melt  with  fervent  heat. 
That  was  their  belief.  They  believed  that  the  world  was  to  be 
destroyed,  and  that  there  was  to  be  another  coming,  and  that  the 
saints  were  then  to  govern  the  world.  And  they  even  went  so  far 
among  the  Apostles,  as  we  frequently  do  now  before  election,  as  to 
divide  out  the  offices  in  advance.  This  Testament  was  not  written 
for  hundreds  of  years  after  the  Apostles  were  duafc.  These  facts 
lived  in  the  open  mouth  of  credulity.  They  were  in  the  waste- 
baskets  of  forgetful  ness.  They  depended  upon  the  inaccuracy  of 
legend,  and  for  centuries  these  doctrines  and  stories  were  blown 
about  by  the  inconstant  winds.  And,  finally,  when  reduced  to 
writing,  some  gentleman  would  write  by  the  side  of  the  passage 
bis  idea  of  it,  and  the  next  copyist  would  put  that  in  as  a  part  of 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  T  5 

the  text.  And,  finally,  when  it  was  made,  and  the  Church  got  in 
trouble,  and  wanted  a  passage  to  help  it  out,  one  was  interpolated 
to  order.  So  that  now  it  is  among  the  easiest  tumgs  in  the  world 
to  pick  out  at  least  one  hundred  interpolations  in  the  Testament. 
4_nd  I  will  pick  some  of  them  out  before  I  get  through. 

And  let  rne  say  here,  once  for  all,  that  for  the  man  Christ  I  have 
infinite  respect.  Let  me  say,  once  for  all,  that  the  place  where 
man  has  died  for  man  is  holy  ground;  and  let  me  say,  once  for  all, 
to  that  great  and  serene  man  I  gladly  pay  the  homage  of  my 
admiration  and  my  tears.  He  was  a  reformer  in  His  day.  He 
was  an  infidel  in  His  time.  He  was  regarded  as  a  blasphemer,  and 
His  life  was  destroyed  by  hypocrites,  who  have,  in  all  ages,  done 
what  they  could  to  trample  freedom  out  of  the  human  mind. 
Had  I  lived  at  that  time  I  would  have  been  His  friend,  and  should 
He  come  again  He  would  not  find  a  better  friend  than  I  will  be. 

That  is  for  the  man.  For  the  theological  creation  I  have  a  dif- 
ferent feeling.  If  He  was,  in  fact,  God,  He  knew  that  there  was 
no  such  thing  as  death.  He  knew  that  what  we  call  death  was 
but  the  eternal  opening  of  the  golden  gates  of  everlasting  joy ;  and 
it  took  no  heroism  to  face  a  death  that  was  simply  eternal  life. 

But  when  a  man,  when  a  poor  boy  sixteen  years  of  age,  goes 
upon  the  field  of  battle  to*  keep  his  flag  in  heaven,  not  knowing  but 
that  death  ends  all— not  knowing  but  that,  when  the  shadows 
creep  over  him,  the  darkness  will  be  eternal — there  is  heroism. 

And  so  for  the  man  who,  in  the  darkness,  said:  "My  God,  why 
hast  Thou  forsaken  Me?"— for  that  man  I  have  nothing  but 
respect,  admiration,  and  love. 

A  while  ago  I  made  up  my  mind  to  find  out  what  was  necessary 
for  me  to  do  in  order  to  be  saved.  If  I  have  got  a  soul,  I  want  it 
saved.  I  do  not  wish  to  lose  anything  that  is  of  value.  For  thou 
sands  of  years  the  world  has  been  asking  that  question :  "  What 
shall  we  do  to  be  saved  ?  " 

Saved  from  poverty?  No.  Saved  from  crime ?  No.  Tyranny? 
No.  But  "  What  shall  we  do  to  be  saved  from  the  eternal  wrath 
of  the  God  who  made  us  all  ?" 

If  God  made  us,  He  will  not  destroy  us.  Infinite  wisdom  never 
made  a  poor  investment.  And  upon  all  the  works  of  an  infinite 
God,  a  dividend  must  finally  be  declared.  The  pulpit  has  cast  a 
shadow  over  even  the  cradle.  The  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment has  covered  the  cheeks  of  this  world  with  tears.  I  despise 
it,  and  I  defy  it. 


6  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

I  made  up  my  mind,  I  say,  to  see  what  I  had  to  do  in  order 
to  save  my  soul  according  to  the  Testament,  and  thereupon  I  read 
it.  I  read  the  gospel,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  But  I 
foun.l  that  the  Church  had  been  deceiving  me.  I  found  that  the 
clergy  did  not  understand  their  own  book.  I  found  that  they  had 
been  building  upon  passages  that  had  been  interpolated.  I  found 
that  they  had  been  building  upon  passages  that  were  entirely 
untrue.  And  I  will  tell  you  why  I  think  so. 

The  first  of  the  these  gospels  was  written  by  St.  Matthew, 
according  to  the  claim.  Of  course  he  never  wrote  a  word  of  it. 
Never  saw  it.  Never  heard  of  it.  But,  for  the  purposes  of  this 
lecture,  I  will  admit  that  he  wrote  it.  I  will  admit  that  he  was 
with  Christ  for  three  years;  that  he  heard  much  of  His  conversa- 
tion during  that  time,  and  that  he  became  impregnated  with  the 
doctrines,  or  dogmas,  and  the  ideas  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Now  let  us  see  what  Matthew  says  we  must  do  in  order  to  be 
savad.  And  I  take  it  that,  if  this  be  true,  Matthew  is  as  good  an 
authority  as  any  minister  in  the  world. 

The  first  thing  I  find  upon  the  subject  of  salvation  is  in  the  fifth 
chapter  of  Matthew,  and  is  embraced  in  what  is  commonly  known 
as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  It  is  as  follows : 

"  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Good ! 

"  Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain  rnercy."  Good ! 
"Whether  they  belonged  to  any  church  or  not;  whether  they 
believed  the  Bible  or  not. 

"  Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy."     Good ! 

"  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God.  Blessed 
are  the  peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God. 
Blessed  are  they  which  are  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake," 
(that's  me,  little)  "  for  theirs  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven." 

In  the  same  sermon  he  says :  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to 
dastroy  the  law  or  the  prophets.  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfill."  And  then  he  makes  use  of  this  remarkable  language,  al- 
most as  applicable  to-day  as  it  was  then :  "  For  I  say  unto  you 
that  except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven."  Good! 

In  the  sixth  chapter  I  find  the  following,  and  it  conies  directly 
after  the  prayer  known  as  the  Lord's  prayer:  "For  if  you  forgive 
men  their  trespasses  your  Heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive  you; 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  JiH  SAVED?"  f 

but  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses  neither  will  your  Father 
forgive  your  trespasses."  I  accept  the  conditions.  There  is  an 
offer;  1  accept  it.  "If  you  will  forgive  men  that  trespass  against 
you,  God  will  forgive  your  trespasses  against  Him.  I  accept,  and 
1  never  will  ask  any  God  to  treat  me  any  better  than  I  treat  my 
fellow-men.  There  is  a  square  promise.  There  is  a  contract.  If 
you  will  forgive  others  God  will  forgive  you.  And  it  does  not  say 
you  must  believe  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  be  baptized,  nor  join 
the  Church,  nor  keep  Sunday.  It  simply  says,  if  you  forgive  others 
God  will  forgive  you ;  and  it  must  of  necessity  be  true.  Xo  God 
could  afford  to  damn  a  forgiving  man.  [A  voice :  "  Will  He  for- 
give Democrats?"]  Oh,  certainly.  Let  me  say  right  here  that  I 
know  lots  of  Democrats,  great,  broad,  whole-souled,  clever  men ; 
and  I  love  them.  And  the  only  bad  thing  about  them  is  that  they 
vote  the  Democratic  ticket.  And  I  know  lots  of  Eepublicans  so 
mean  and  narrow  that  the  only  decent  thing  about  them  is  that 
they  vote  the  Republican  ticket. 

Now  let  me  make  myself  plain  upon  that  subject,  perfectly 
plain.  For  instance,  I  hate  Presbyterianism,  but  I  know  hundreds 
of  splendid  Presbyterians.  Understand  me.  I  hate  Methodism, 
and  yet  I  know  hundreds  of  splendid  Methodists.  I  dislike  a  cer- 
tain set  of  principles  called  Democracy,  and  yet  I  know  thousands 
of  Democrats  that  I  respect  and  like.  I  like  a  certain  set  of  prin- 
ciples— that  is,  most  of  them,— called  Eepublicanism,  and  yet  I 
know  lots  of  Republicans  that  are  a  disgrace  to  those  principles. 

I  do  not  war  against  men.  I  do  not  war  against  persons.  .  I  war 
against  certain  doctrines  that  I  believe  to  be  wrong.  And  I  give 
to  every  other  human  being  every  right  that  I  claim  for  myself. 
Of  course  I  did  not  intend,  to-day,  to  tell  what  we  must  do  in  the 
election  for  the  purpose  of  being  saved. 

The  next  thing  that  I  find  is  in  the  seventh  chapter  and  the 
second  verse:  "For  with  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall  be 
judged;  and  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to 
you  again,"  Good!  That  suits  me! 

And  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Matthew :  "For  whosoever  shall 
do  the  will  of  my  Father  that  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother 
and  sister  and  mother.  For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the- 
glory  of  His  Father  with  His  angels,  and  then  He  shall  reward 
every  man  according —  '  To  the  church  he  belongs  to?  !No. 
To  the  manner  in  which  he  was  baptised  ?  Xo.  According  to 
his  creed  ?  2sro.  "Then  he  shall  reward  every  man  according  to- 
his  works."  Good!  I  subscribe  to  that  doctrine. 


S  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

And  in  th^  si-cteenth  chapter:  "And  Jesus  called  a  little  child 
to  Him  and  atood  him  in  the  midst;  and  said,  'Verily,  I  say  unto 
you.  except  ye  become  converted  and  become  as  little  children,  ye 
shall  not  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.' "  I  do  not  wonder 
that  a  reformer  in  His  day  that  met  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
-and  hypocrites,  I  not  wonder  that  at  last  He  turned  to  children 
and  said :  "Except  ye  become  as  little  children,"  I  do  not  wonder. 
And  yet,  see  what  children  the  children  of  God  have  been.  What 
.an  interesting  dimpled  darling  John  Calvin  was.  Think  of  that 
prattling  babe  known  as  Jonathan  Edwards !  Think  of  the  infants 
that  founded  the  Inquisition,  that  in  vented  instruments  of  torture 
to  tear  human  flesh.  They  were  the  ones  who  had  become  as 
little  children. 

So  I  find  in  the  nineteenth  chapter:  "And  behold,  one  came 
and  said  unto  Him :  'Good  master,  what  good  thing  shall  I  do 
that  I  may  have  eternal  life  ?' and  he  said  unto  him,  'why  call'st 
thou  Me  good  ?  There  is  none  good  but  one,  and  that  is  God,  but 
if  thou  will  enter  into  eternal  life,  keep  the  commandments,'  and 
lie  said  unto  Him, '  Which  ?' " 

Now,  there  is  a  pretty  fair  issue.  Here  is  a  child  of  God  asking 
God  what  is  necessary  for  him  to  do  in  order  to  inherit  eternal 
Jife.  And  God  says  to  him :  Keep  the  commandments.  And  the 
•diild  said  to  the  Almighty:  "Which?"  N"ow  if  there  ever  had 
been  an  opportunity  given  to  the  Almighty  to  furnish  a  gentle- 
man with  an  inquiring  mind  with  the  necessary  information  upon 
that  subject,  here  was  the  opportunity.  "He  said  unto  Him. 
which?"  And  Jesus  said:  "Thou  shalt  do  no  murder;  thou  shalt 
not  commit  adultery;  thou  shalt  not  steal;  thou  shalt  not  bear 
false  witness ;  honor  thy  father  and  mother ;  and,  thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  He  did  not  say  to  him :  "  You  must 
believe  in  Me— that  I  am  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  living 
God."  He  did  not  say:  "You  must  be  born  again."  He  did 
not  say :  "  You  must  believe  the  Bible."  He  did  not  say :  "  You 
must  remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy."  He  simply 
said:  "Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery.  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
witness.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother;  and,  thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  And  thereupon  the  young  man,  who 
I  think  was  a  little  "  fresh,"  and  probably  mistaken,  said  unto 
Him :  "  All  these  things  have  I  kept  from  my  youth  up."  I  don't 
believe  that. 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED}"  9 

Now  comes  in  an  interpolation.  In  the  old  times  when  the 
Church  got  a  little  scarce  for  money,  they  always  put  in  a  passage 
praising  poverty.  So  they  had  this  young  man  ask:  "  What  lack 
I  yet?"  And  Jesus  said  unto  him :  "  If  thou  \vilt  be  perfect,  go 
and  sell  that  thou  hast  and  give  it  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have 
treasures  in.  heaven."  The  Church  has  always  been  willing  to 
swap  of  treasures  in  heaven  for  cash  down. 

And  when  the  next  verse  was  written  the  Church  must  have 
been  nearly  dead-broke.  "And  again  I  say  unto  you,  it  is  easier 
for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man 
to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Did  you  ever  know  a  wealthy 
disciple  to  unload  on  account  of  that  verse  ? 

And  then  comes  another  verse,  which  I  believe  is  an  interpola- 
tion :  "  And  every  one  that  has  forsaken  houses,  or  brethren  or 
sisters,  or  father  or  mother,  or  wife  or  children,  or  lands,  for  my 
name's  sake,  shall  receive  an  hundredfold,  and  shall  inherit  ever- 
lasting life."  Christ  never  said  it.  Never.  "Whosoever  slsall 
forsake  father  and  mother."  Why  He  said  to  this  man  that  asked 
him:  "What  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life?"  among  other 
things,  He  said:  "  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother."  And  we 
turn  over  the  page  and  lie  says:  "If  you  will  desert  your  father 
and  your  mother  you  shall  have  everlasting  life."  It  won't  do. 
If  you  will  desert  your  wife  and  your  little  children,  or  your 
lauds— the  idea  of  putting  a  house  and  lot  on  equality  with  wife 
and  children.  Think  of  that!  I  do  not  acce.pt  the  terms.  I  will 
never  desert  the  one  I  love  for  the  promise  of  any  God. 

It  is  far  more  important  that  we  shall  love  our  wives  than  that 
we  shall  love  God.  And  I  will  tell  you  why.  You  cannot  help 
Him.  You  can  help  her.  You  can  fill  her  life  with  the  perfume 
of  perpetual  joy.  It  is  far  more  important  that  you  love  your 
children  than  that  you  love  Jesus  Christ.  And  why  ?  If  He  is 
God  you  cannot  help  him,  but  you  can  plant  a  little  ilower  of  hap- 
piness in  every  footstep  of  the  child,  from  the  cradle  until  you  die 
in  that  child's  arms.  Let  me  tell  you  to-day  it  is  far  more  im- 
portant to  build  a  home  than  to  erect  a  church.  The  holiest  temple 
beneath  the  stars  is  a  home  that  love  has  built.  And  the  holiest 
altar  in  all  the  wide  world  is  the  fireside  around  which  gather 
father  and  mother  and  children. 

There  was  a  time  when  people  believed  that  infamy.  There 
was  a  time  when  they  did  desert  fathers  and  mothers,  and  wives 
and  children.  St.  Augustme  says  to  the  devotee:  "Fly  to  the 


10  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

desert,  and  though  your  wife  put  her  arms  around  your  neck,  tear 
her  hands  away ;  she  is  a  temptation  of  the  devil.  Though  your 
father  and  mother  throw  their  bodies  athwart  your  threshold,  step 
over  them ;  and  though  your  children  pursue  and  with  weeping 
eyes  beseech  you  to  return,  listen  not.  It  is  the  temptation  of  the 
evil  one.  Fly  to  the  desert  and  save  your  soul."  Think  of  such  a 
soul  being  worth  saving.  While  I  live  I  propose  to  stand  by  the 
folks. 

Here  there  is  another  condition  of  salvation.  I  find  it  in  the 
25th  chapter:  "Then  shall  the  King  say  unto  them  on  his  right 
hand,  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared 
for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  For  I  was  hungred 
and  ye  gave  Me(meat ;  I  was  thirsty  and  ye  gave  Me  drink ;  I  was 
a  stranger  and  ye  took  Me  in ;  naked  and  ye  clothed  Me ;  and  I  was 
sick  and  ye  visited  Me ;  and  I  was  in  prison,  and  ye  came  unto 
Me."  Good!  And  I  tell  you  to-night  that  God  will  not  punish 
with  eternal  thirst  the  man  who  has  put  the  cup  of  cold  water  to 
the  lips  of  his  neighbor.  God  will  not  allow  to  live  in  eternal 
nakedness  of  pain  the  man  who  has  clothed  others. 

For  instance,  here  is  a  shipwreck,  and  here  is  some  brave  sailor 
•stands  aside  and  allows  a  woman  whom  he  never  saw  before  to 
take  his  place  in  the  boat,  and  he  stands  there,  grand  and  serene 
as  the  wide  sea,  and  he  goes  down.  Do  you  tell  me  there  is  any 
God  who  will  push  the  life-boat  from  the  shore  of  eternal  life, 
when  that  man  wishes  to  step  in  ?  Do  you  tell  me  that  God  can 
be  unpitying  to  the  pitiful,  that  He  can  be  unforgiving  to  the  for- 
giving? I  deny  it;  and  from  the  aspersions  of  the  pulpit  I  seek 
to  rescue  the  reputation  of  the  Deity. 

Now,  I  have  read  you  everything  in  Matthew  on  the  subject  of 
salvation.  That  is  all  there  is.  Not  one  word  about  believing 
anything.  It  is  the  gospel  of  deed,  the  gospel  of  charity,  the  gospel 
of  self-denial ;  and  if  only  that  gospel  had  been  preached,  persecu- 
tion never  would  have  shed  one  drop  of  blood.  Not  one. 

Now,  according  to  the  testimony,  Matthew  was  well  acquainted 
with  Christ.  According  to  the  testimony,  he  nad  been  with  Him, 
and  His  coinpanio)!  for  years,  and  if  it  was  necessary  to  believe 
anything  in  order  to  get  to  heaven,  Matthew  should  have  told  us. 
But  he  forgot  it.  Or  he  didn't  believe  it.  Or  he  never  heard  of 
it.  You  can  take  your  choice. 

The  next  is  Mark.  Now  let  us  see  what  he  says.  And  for  the 
purpose  of  this  lecture  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to  say  that  Mark 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED f"  11 

agrees,  substantially,  with  Matthew,  that  God  will  be  merciful  to 
the  merciful ;  that  He  will  be  kind  to  the  kind ;  that  He  will  pity 
the  pitying.  And  it  is  precisely,  or  substantially,  the  same  as 
Matthew  until  I  come  to  the  16th  verse  of  the  16th  chapter,  and 
then  I  strike  an  interpolation,  put  in  by  hypocrisy,  put  in  by 
priests,  who  longed  to  grasp  with  bloody  hands  the  sceptre  of  uni- 
versal authority. 

Let  me  read  it  to  you.  And  it  is  the  most  infamous  passage  in 
the  Bible.  Christ  never  said  it.  No  sensible  man  ever  said  it. 
"And  He  said  unto  them" — that  is,  unto  His  disciples — "Go  ye  into 
all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned." 

Now,  I  propose  to  prove  to  you  that  that  is  an  interpolation. 
Now  how  will  I  do  it?  In  the  first  place,  not  one  word  is  said 
about  belief  in  Matthew.  In  the  next  place,  not  one  word  about 
belief  in  Mark,  until  I  come  to  that  verse.  And  when  is  that  said 
to  have  been  spoken  ?  According  to  Mark,  it  is  a  part  of  the  last 
conversation  of  Jesus  Christ — just  before,  according  to  the  account, 
He  ascended  bodily  before  their  eyes.  If  there  ever  was  any 
important  thing  happened  in  this  world,  that  is  one  of  them.  If 
there  was  any  conversation  that  people  would  be  apt  to  recollect, 
it  would  be  the  last  conversation  with  God  before  He  rose  through 
the  air  and  seated  Himself  upon  the  throne  of  the  Infinite.  We 
have  in  this  Testament  five  accounts  of  the  last  conversation  hap- 
pening between  Jesus  Christ  and  His  apostles.  Matthew  gives  it. 
And  yet  Matthew  does  not  state  that  in  that  conversation  He  said : 
"  Whoso  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  whoso  believ- 
eth not  shall  be  damned."  And  if  He  did  say  those  words,  they 
were  the  most  important  that  ever  fell  from  His  lips.  Matthew 
did  not  hear  it,  or  did  not  believe  it,  or  forgot  it. 

Then  I  turn  to  Luke,  and  he  gives  an  account  of  this  same  last 
conversation,  and  not  one  word  does  he  say  upon  that  subject. 
Now  it  is  the  most  important  thing,  if  Christ  said  it,  that  He 
ever  said. 

Then  I  turn  to  John,  and  he  gives  an  account  of  the  last  conver- 
sation, but  not  one  solitary  word  on  the  subject  of  belief  or  unbe- 
lief. Not  one  solitary  word  on  the  subject  of  damnation.  Not 
one. 

Then  I  turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  Ihe  Acts,  and  there  I  find  an. 
account  of  the  last  conversation ;  and  in  that  conversation  there  i» 


12  f$GBR&OLL'8  NEW  LECTURE, 

not  one  word  upon  this  subject.    Now  I  say  that  that  demonstrates 
that  the  passage  in  Mark  is  an  interpolation. 

What  other  reason  have  I  got  ?  That  there  is  not  one  particle  of 
sense  in  it.  Why?  Mo  man  can  control  his  belief.  You  hear 
evidence  for  and  against,  and  the  integrity  of  the  soul  stands  at  the 
scales  and  tells  which  side  rises  and  which  side  falls.  You  cannot 
believe  as  you  wish.  You  must  believe  as  you  must.  And  He 
might  as  well  have  said:  "Go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
gospel,  and  whosoever  has  red  hair  shall  be  saved,  and  whosoever 
hath  not  shall  be  damned." 

I  have  another  reason.  I  am  much  obliged  to  the  gentleman 
who  interpolated  these  passages.  I  am  much  obliged  to  him  that 
he  put  in  some  more — two  more.  Now  hear : 

"And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe."     Good! 

"In  My  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils.  They  shall  speak  with 
new  tongues,  and  they  shall  take  up  serpents,  and  if  they  drink 
any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  them.  They  shall  lay  hands  on 
the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover." 

Bring  on  your  believer!  Let  him  cast  out  a  devil.  I  do  not 
claim  a  large  one.  Just  a  "  little  one  for  a  cent."  Let  him  take  up 
serpents.  "And  if  he  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt 
him."  Let  me  mix  up  a  dose  for  the  theological  believer,  and  if 
it  does  not  hurt  him  I'll  join  a  church.  "Oh!  but," they  say 
"  those  things  only  lasted  through  that  Apostolic  age."  Let  us  see. 
Go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel,  and  whosoever  be- 
lieves and  is  baptised  shall  be  saved,  and  these  signs  shall  follow 
them  that  believe." 

How  long?  I  think  at  least  until  they  had  gone  into  all  the 
world.  Certainly  these  signs  should  follow  until  all  the  world 
had  been  visited.  And  yet  if  that  declaration  was  in  the  mouth 
of  Christ,  he  then  knew  that  one-half  of  the  world  was  unknown 
and  that  He  would  be  dead  1,492  years  before  His  disciples  would 
know  that  there  was  another  world.  And  yet  he  said,  "Go  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel,"  and  He  knew  then  that  it  would 
be  1,492  years  before  anybody  went.  Well,  if  it  was  worth  while 
to  have  signs  follow  believers  in  the  old  world,  surely  it  was 
worth  while  to  have  signs  follow  believers  in  the  new  world. 
And  the  very  reason  that  signs  should  follow  would  be  to  con- 
vince the  unbeliever,  and  there  are  as  many  unbelievers  now  as 
•ever,  and  the  signs  are  as  necessaiy  to-day  as  they  ever  were.  I 
would  like  a  few  myself. 


"  WHAT  SHALL    WE  DO  TO  BE  SA  VED  ?"  15 

This  frightful  declaration,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptised 
shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  has 
filled  the  world  with  agony  and  crime.  Every  letter  of  this  pas- 
sage has  been  sword  and  fagot ;  every  word  has  been  dungeon  and 
chain.  That  passage  made  the  sword  of  persecution  drip  with 
innocent  blood  for  ten  centuries.  That  passage  made  the  horizon 
of  a  thousand  years  lurid  with  the  flames  of  fagots.  That  passage 
contradicts  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  That  passage  travesties  the 
Lord's  Prayer.  That  passage  turns  the  splendid  religion  of  deed 
and  duty  into  the  superstition  of  creed  and  cruelty.  I  deny  it.  It 
is  infamous  I  Christ  never  said  it!  Kow  I  come  to  Luke,  and  it 
is  sufficient  to  say  that  Luke  substantially  agrees  with  Matthew 
and  with  Mark.  Substantially  agrees,  as  the  evidence  is  read.  I 
like  it. 

"Be  ye  therefore  merciful,  as  your  Father  is  also  merciful." 
Good! 

"Judge  not  and  ye  shall  not  be  judged.  Condemn  not  and  ye 
shall  not  be  condemned ;  forgive  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven."  Good  I 

"Give  and  it  shall  be  given  unto  you  good  measure,  pressed 
down,  shaken  together,  running  over."  Good !  I  like  it. 

"For  the  same  measure  that  ye  mete  withal  it  shall  be  measured 
to  you  again." 

He  agrees  substantially  with  Mark ;  he  agrees  substantially  with 
Matthew ;  and  I  come  at  last  to  the  nineteenth  chapter, 

"And  Zaccheus  stood  and  said  unto  the  Lord, '  Behold,  Lord,  the 
one-half  of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor,  and  if  I  have  taken  any- 
thing from  any  man  by  false  accusation,  I  restore  him  four-fold/ 
And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  'This  day  is  salvation  come  to  this 
house.' " 

That  is  good  doctrine.  He  didn't  ask  Zaccheus  what  he  be- 
lieved. He  didn't  ask  him, "  Do  you  believe  in  the  Bible  ?  Do  you 
believe  in  the  five  points  ?  Have  you  ever  been  baptised — sprink- 
led ?  Oh!  immersed.  "  Half  of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor,  and 
if  I  have  taken  anything  from  any  man  by  false  accusation,  I 
restore  him  four- fold."  •'  And  Christ  said, '  This  day  is  salvation 
come  to  this  house.' "  Good ! 

I  read  also  in  Luke  that  Christ  when  upon  the  cross  forgave 
His  murderers,  and  that  is  considered  the  shining  gem  in  the 
crown  of  His  mercy— that  He  forgave  His  murderers.  That  He 
forgave  the  men  who  drove  the  nails  in  His  hands,  in  His  feet,  that 
plunged  a  spear  in  His  side ;  the  soldier  that  in  the  hour  of  death 


14  TNQERSOLUS  NEW  LECTURE, 

offered  Him  in  mockery  the  bitterness  to  drink ;  that  He  forgave 
them  all  freely,  and  that  yet,  although  He  would  forgive  them,  He 
will  in  the  nineteenth  century  damn  to  eternal  tire  an  honest  man 
lor  the  expression  of  his  honest  thoughts.  That  won't  do.  I  find 
too,  in  Luke,  an  account  of  two  thieves  that  were  crucified  at  the 
same  time.  The  other  gospels  speak  of  them.  One  says  they  both 
railed  upon  Him.  Another  says  nothing  about  it.  In  Luke  we 
are  told  that  one  did,  but  one  of  the  thieyes  looked  and  pitied 
•Christ,  and  Christ  said  to  that  thief : 

"  This  day  shalt  thou  meet  me  in  Paradise." 

"Why  did  He  say  that?  Because  the  thief  pitied  Him.  And 
•God  cannot  afford  to  trample  beneath  the  feet  of  His  infinite 
wrath  the  smallest  bios  som  of  pity  that  ever  shed  its  perfume  in 
he  human  heart! 

Who  was  this  thief?  To  what  church  did  he  belong?  1 
don't  know.  The  fact  that  he  was  a  thief  throws  no  light  on 
that  question.  Who  was  he?  What  did  he  believe?  i  dont 
know.  Did  he  believe  in  the  Old  Testament?  In  the  mira- 
cles? I  don't  know.  Did  he  believe  that  Christ  was  God?  I 
don't  know.  Why,  then,  was  the  promise  made  to  him  that  he 
should  meet  Christ  in  Paradise.  Simply  because  he  pitied  inno- 
cence suffering  on  the  cross. 

God  cannot  afford  to  damn  any  man  that  is  capable  of  pitying 
anybody. 

And  now  we  come  to  John,  and  that  is  where  the  trouble  com- 
mences. The  other  gospels  teach  that  God  will  be  merciful  to  the 
merciful,  forgiving  to  the  forgiving,  kind  to  the  -kind,  loving  to 
the  loving,  just  to  the  just,  merciful  to  the  good. 

]^ow  we  come  to  John,  and  here  is  another  doctrine.  And  allow 
me  to  say  that  John  was  not  written  until  centuries  after  the 
others.  This,  the  Church  got  up : 

"And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him:  'Furthermore  I 
say  unto  thee  that  except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the, 
Kingdom  of  God.'" 

Why  didn't  He  tell  Matthew  that?  Why  didn't  He  tell  Luke 
that?  Why  didn't  He  tell  Mark  that?  They  never  heard  of  it 
or  forgot  it,  or  they  didn't  believe  it. 

4i  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the.  Spirit  he  cannot 
enttT  into  the  Kingdom  of  God."  Why  ? 

"  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born 
of  the  spirit  is  spirit.  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  '  ye  must 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVJSDf  15 

be  born  again.'  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that 
•which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is  spirit," — and  He  might  have  ad  ded 
that  which  is  born  of  water  is  water. 

"Marvel  not  that  I  say  unto  thee,  'ye  must  be  born  again.'" 
And  then  the  reason  is  given,  and  I  admit  I  did  not  understand 
it  myself  until  I  read  the  reason,  and  when  you  read  the  reason, 
you  will  understand  it  as  well  as  I  do;  and  here  it.  is:  "The 
wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  andthou  hearest  the  sound  thereof, 
and  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth."  So, 
I  find  in  the  b  ook  of  John  the  idea  of  the  real  presence. 

So  I  find  in  the  book  of  John,  that  in  order  to  be  saved  we  must 
eat  of  the  flesh  and  we  must  drink  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  if  that  gospel  is  true,  the  Catholic  Church  is  right.  But  it  is 
not  true.  I  cannot  believe  it,  and  yet  for  all  that  it  may  be  true. 
But  I  don't  believe  it.  Neither  do  I  believe  there  is  any  God  in 
the  universe  who  will  damn  a  man  simply  for  expressing  his 
belief. 

""Why,"  they  say  to  me,  "suppose  all  this  should  turn  out  to  be 
true,  and  you  should  come  to  the  day  of  judgment  and  find  all 
these  things  to  be  true.  What  would  you  do  then  ?"  I  would  walk 
up  like  a  man,  and  say,  "  I  was  mistaken." 

"And  suppose  God  was  about  to  pass  judgment  on  you,  what 
would  you  say  ?"  I  would  say  to  him,  "Do  unto  others  as  you 
would  that  others  should  do  unto  you."  Why  not  ? 

I  am  told  that  I  must  render  good  for  evil.  I  am  told  that  if 
smitten  on  one  cheek  I  must  turn  the  other.  I  am  told  that  I 
must  overcome  evil  w  ith  good.  I  am  told  that  I  must  love  my 
enemies ;  and  will  it  do  for  this  God  who  tells  me,  "  Love  my 
enemies,"  to  say,  "  I  will  damn  mine  ?  "  No,  it  will  not  do.  It  will 
not  do. 

In  the  book  of  John  all  this  doctrine  of  rege  neration ;  all  Jthis 
doctrine  that  it  is  necessary  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
all  the  doctrine  that  salvation  depends  upon  belief — in  this  book 
of  John  all  these  doctrines  find  their  warrant ;  nowhere  else. 

Bead  these  three  gospels  and  then  read  John,  and  you  will  agree 
with  me  that  the  gospels  that  teach  "We  must  be  kind,  we  must 
be  merciful,  we  must  be  forgiving,  and  thereupon  that  God  will 
forgive  us,"  is  true,  and  then  say  whether  or  no  that  doctrine  is 
not  better  than  the  doctrine  that  somebody  else  can  be  good  for 
you,  that  somebody  else  can  be  bad  for  you,  and  that  the  only  way 
to  get  to  heaven  is  to  believe  something  that  you  do  not  under- 
stand. 


10  IJSGERSOLISIS  NEW  LECTURE, 

Ixow  upon  these  gospels  that  I  have  read  the  churches  rest ; and 
out  of  those  things  that  1  have  read  they  have  made  their  creeds. 
And  the  first  Church  to  make  a  creed,  so  far  as  I  know,  was  the 
Catholic.  I  take  it  that  is  the  first  Church  that  had  any  power, 
That  is  the  Church  that  has  preserved  all  these  miracles  for  us. 
That  is  the  Church  that  preserved  the  manuscripts  lor  us.  That 
is  the  Church  whose  word  we  have  to  take.  That  Church  is  the 
first  witness  that  Protestantism  brought  to  the  bar  of  history  to 
prove  miracles  that  took  place  eighteen  hundred  years  ago;  and 
while  the  witness  is  there  Protestantism  takes  pains  to  say: 
"You  can't  believe  one  word  that  witness  says,  now." 

That  Church  is  the  only  one  that  keeps  up  a  constant  communi- 
cation with  heaven  through  the  instrumentality  of  a  large  number 
of  decayed  saints.  That  Church  is  an  agent  of  God  on  earth.  That 
Church  has  a  person  who  stands  in  the  place  of  Deity ;  and  that 
Church,  according  to  their  doctrine,  is  infallible.  That  Church  has 
persecuted  to  the  exact  extent  of  her  power — and  always  will.  In 
Spain  that  Church  stands  erect,  and  that  Church  is  arrogant.  In 
the  United  States  that  Church  crawls.  But  the  object  in  both 
countries  is  the  same,  and  that  is  the  destruction  of  intellectual 
liberty.  That  Church  teaches  us  that  we  can  make  God  happy  by 
being  miserable  ourselves.  That  Church  teaches  you  that  a  nun 
is  holier  in  the  sight  of  God  than  a  loving  mother  with  a  child  in 
her  thrilled  and  thrilling  arms.  That  Church  teaches  you  that  a 
priest  is  better  than  a  father.  That  Church  teaches  you  that  celi- 
bacy is  better  than  that  passion  of  love  that  has  made  everything 
of  beauty  in  this  world.  That  Church  teaches  you  that  celibacy  is 
better  than  that  passion  of  love  that  has  made  everything  of 
beauty  in  this  world.  That  Church  tells  the  girl  of  16  or  IS  years 
of  age,  with  eyes  like  dew  and  light— that  girl  with  the  red  of 
health  in  the  white  of  her  beautiful  cheeks — tells  that  girl,  "  Put 
on  the  veil  woven  of  death  and  night,  kneel  upon  stones,  and  you 
will  please  God." 

1  tell  you  that,  by  law,  no  girl  should  be  allowed  to  take  the  veil, 
and  renounce  the  beauties  of  the  world,  until  she  was  at  least  25 
years  of  age.  "Wait  until  she  knows  what  she  wants. 

I  am  opposed  to  allowing  these  spider-like  priests  weaving  webs 
to  catch  the  flies  of  youth ;  and  there  ought  to  be  a  law  appointing 
commissioners  to  visit  such  places  twice  a  year,  and  release  every 
person  who  expresses  a  desire  to  be  released.  I  don't  believe  in 
keeping  penitentiaries  for  God.  No  doubt  they  are  honest  about 
it  That  is  not  the  question. 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED}"  17 

Now  this  Church,  after  a  few  centuries  of  thought,  made  ;i  creed, 
and  that  creed  is  the  foundation  of  orthodox  religion.  Let  me 
read  it  to  you  : 

"  Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary  that 
Ue  hold  the  Catholic  faith;  which  faith,  except  every  one  do  keep 
ontire  and  inviolate,  without  doubt,  he  shall  everlastingly  perish." 
Xow  the  faith  is  this:  "That  we  worship  one  God  in  trinity,  and 
trinity  in  unity." 

Of  course  you  understand  how  that's  done,  and  there's  no  need 
of  my  explaining  it.  "  Neither  confounding  the  persons  nor  divid- 
ing the  substance." 

You  see  what  a  predicament  that  would  leave  the  Deity  in  if 
you  divided  the  substance. 

For  one  is  the  person  of  the  Father,  another  of  the  Son,  and 
another  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  all  one"— you  know  what  I  mean 
by  Godhead.  "In  glory  equal,  and  in  majesty  co-eternal.  Such  as 
the  Father  is,  such  is  the  Son,  such  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Father  is  uncreated,  the  Son  uncreated,  the  Holy  Ghost  uncreated, 
The  Father  incomprehensible,  the  Son  incomprehensible,  the  Holy 
Ghost  incomprehensible."  And  that  is  the  reason  we  know  so 
much  about  the  thing.  "The  Father  is  eternal,  the  Son  eternal, 
the  Holy  Ghost  eternal,"  and  yet  there  are  not  three  eternals,  only 
one  eternal,  as  also  there  are^not  three  uncreated,  nor  three  in- 
comprehensibles,  only  one  uncreated,  one  incomprehensible. 

"  In  like  manner,  the  Father  is  almighty,  the  Son  almighty,  the 
Holy  Ghost  almighty."  Yet  there  are  not  three  almighties,  only 
one  Almighty.  So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  God,  the  Holy 
Ghost  God,  and  yet  not  three  Gods ;  and  so  likewise,  the  Father  is 
Lord,  the  Son  is  Lord,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Lord,  yet  there  are  not 
three  Lords,  for  as  we  are»  compelled  by  the  Christian  truth  to 
acknowledge  every  person  by  himself  to  be  God  and  Lord,  so 
we  are  all  forbidden  by  the  Catholic  religion  to  say  there  are  three 
Gods,  or  three  Lords.  "The  Father  is  made  of  no  one;  not  created 
or  begotten.  The  Son  is  from  the  Father  alone,  not  made,  nor 
created,  or  begotten.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  not  made  nor  begotten,  but  proceeded — " 

You  know  what  proceeding  is. 

"  So  there  is  one  Father,  not  three  Fathers."  Why  should  there 
be  three  Fathers,  and  only  one  Son  ? 

"One  Son,  and  not  three  Sons;  one  Holy  Ghost,  not  three  Holy 


18  INQEBSOLVa  NEW  LECTURE,. 

Ghosts;  and  in  this  Trinity  there  is  nothing  before  or  after- 
ward, nothing  greater  or  less,  but  the  whole  three  persons  are 
co-eternal  with  one  another,  and  co-e^ual,  so  that  in  all  things 
the  unity  is  to  be  worshiped  in  Trinity,  and  the  Trinity  is 
to  be  worshiped  in  unity,  and  therefore  we  will  believe.  Those 
who  will  be  saved  must  thus  think  of  the  Trinity.  Further- 
more, it  is  necessary  to  everlasting  salvation  that  he  also 
believe  rightly  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Now 
the  right  of  this  thing  is  this:  That  we  believe  and  confess  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  both  God  and  man.  He 
is  God  of  the  substance  of  His  Father  begotten  before  the  world 
was.  That  was  a  good  while  before  His  mother  lived. , 

"And  he  is  man  of  the  substance  of  His  mother,  born  in  this 
world,  perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  and  the  rational  soul  in 
human  flesh  subsisting  equal  to  the  Father,  according  to  His  God- 
head, but  less  than  the  Father,  according  to  his  manhood,  who 
being  both  God  and  man  is  not  two  but  one— one  not  by  conversion 
of  God  into  flesh  but  by  the  taking  of  the  manhood  into  God." 

You  see  that  it  is  a  great  deal  easier  than  the  other.  "  One 
altogether,  not  by  a  confusion  of  substance,  but  by  unity  of 
person,  for  as  the  rational  soul  and  the  flesh  is  one  man,  so  God 
the  man,  is  one  Christ,  who  suffered  for  our  salvation,  descended 
into  hell,  rose  again  the  third  day  from  the  dead,  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  He  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  the  Father 
Almighty,  and  Ho  shall  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead." 

In  order  to  be  saved  it  is  necessary  to  believe  this.  What  a 
blessing  that  we  do  not  have  to  understand  it.  And  in  order  to 
compel  the  human  intellect  to  get  upon  its  knees  before  that 
infinite  absurdity,  thousands  and  millions  have  suffered  agonies ; 
thousands  and  millions  have  perished* in  dungeons  and  in  fire; 
and  if  all  the  bones  of  all  the  victims  of  the  Catholic  Church 
could  be  'gathered  together,  a  monument  higher  than  all  the 
pyramids  would  rise  in  our  presence,  and  the  eyes  even  of  priests 
would  be  suffused  with  tears. 

That  Church  covered  Europe  with  cathedrals  and  dungeons. 
That  Church  robbed  men  of  the  jewel  of  the  soul.  That  Church 
had  ignorance  upon  its  knees.  That  Church  went  into  part- 
nership with  the  tyrants  of  the  throne,  and  between  these  two 
vultures,  the  altar  and  the  throne,  the  heart  of  man  was  devoured- 

Of  course  I  have  met,  and  cheerfully  admit  that  there  thousands 
of  good  Catholics;  but  Catholicism  is  contrary  to  'human  liberty. 


"WHAT  Sir  ALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED1"  19 

Catholicism  bases  salvation  upon  belief.  Catholicism  teaches 
man  to  trample  his  reason  under  foot.  And  for  that  reason,  it  is 
wrong. 

Now,  the  next  Church  that  comes  along  in  the  way  that  I  wish 
to  speak  is  the  Episcopalian.  That  was  founded  by  Henry  VIII., 
now  in  heaven.  He  cast  off  Queen  Catherine  and  Catholicism 
together.  And  he  accepted  Episcopalianism  and  Annie  Boleyn  at 
the  same  time.  That  Church,  if  it  had  a  few  more  ceremonies, 
would  be  Catholic.  If  it  had  a  few  less,  nothing.  We  have  an 
Episcopalian  Churcn  in  this  country,  and  it  has  all  the  imperfec- 
tion of  a  poor  relation.  1C  is  always  boasting  of  a  rich  relative. 
In  England  the  creed  is  made  by  law,  the  same  as  we  pass  statutes 
here.  And  when  a  gentleman  dies  in  England,  in  order  to 
determine  whether  he  shall  be  saved  or  not,  it  is  necessary  for  the 
power  of  heaven  to  read  the  acts  of  Parliament.  It  becomes  a 
question  of  law,  and  sometimes  a  man  is  damned  on  a  very  nice 
point.  Lost  on  demurrer. 

A  few  years  ago,  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Seabury,  Samuel 
Seabury,  was  sent  over  to  England  to  get  some  apostolic  succession. 
We  hadn't  a  drop  in  the  house.  It  was  necessary  for  the  bishops 
of  the  English  Church  to  put  their  hands  upon  his  head.  They 
refused.  There  was  no  act  of  Parliament  justifying  it.  He  had 
then  to  go  to  the  Scotch  bishops;  and,  had  the  Scotch  bishops 
refused,  we  never  would  Have  had  any  apostolic  succession  in  the 
new  world.  And  God  would  have  been  driven  out  of  half  the 
world ;  and  the  true  church  never  could  have  been  founded.  But 
the  Scotch  bishops  put  their  hands  on  his  head,  and  now  we  have 
an  unbroken  succession  of  heads  and  hands  from  St.  Paul  to  the 
last  bishop. 

In  this  country  the  Episcopal  Church  has  done  some  good,  and 
I  want  to  thank  that  Church.  Having,  on  an  average,  less  religion 
than  the  others,  on  an  average,  you  have  done  more  good  to  man- 
kind. You  preserved  some  of  the  humanities.  You  did  not  hate 
music ;  you  did  not  absolutely  despise  painting,  and  you  did  not 
altogether  abhor  architecture,  and  you  finally  admitted  that  it  was 
no  worse  to  keep  time  with  your  feet  than  with  your  hands.  And 
some  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  people  could  play  cards,  and  that 
God  would  overlook  it,  or  would  look  the  other  way.  For  all 
these  things  accept  my  thanks. 

When  I  was  a  boy,  the  other  Churches  looked  upon  dancing  as 
probably  the  mysterious  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  they 


20  IN&ERSOLL'X  NEW  LECTURE, 

used  to  teach  that  when  four  boys  got  in  a  hay-mow,  playing 
seven-up,  that  the  Eternal  God  stood  whetting  the  sword  of  Hia 
eternal  wrath  waiting  to  strike  them  down  to  the  lowest  helL 
And  so  that  Church  has  done  some  good. 

After  a  while,  in  England,  a  couple  of  gentlemen,  or  a  couple  of 
men  by  the  name  of  "Wesley  and  Whitfield,  said:  "If  everybody 
is  going  to  hell,  nearly,  somebody  ought  to  mention  it.  The 
Episcopal  clergy  said:  "Keep  still;  don't  tear  your  gown." 
Wesley  and  Whitfield  said:  "This  frightful  truth  ought  to  l>e 
proclaimed  from  the  housetops  at  every,  opportunity,  from  the 
highway  of  every  occasion."  They  were  good,  honest  men.  They 
believed  their  doctrine.  Arid  they  said:  ''If  there  is  a  hell, and  a 
Niagara  of  souls  pouring  over  an  eternal  precipice  of  ignorance, 
somebody  ought  to  say  something."  They  were  right ;  somebody 
ought,  if  such  thing  waa  true.  Wesley  was  a  believer  in  the 
Bible.  He  believed  in  the  actual  presence  of  the  Almighty.  God 
used  to  do  miracles  for  him ;  used  to  put  off  a  rain  several  days  to 
give  his  meeting  a  chance ;  used  to  cure  his  horse  of  lameness;  used 
to  cure  Mr.  Wesley's  headaches. 

And  Mr.  Wesley  also  believed  in  the  actual  existence  of  the 
devil.  He  believed  that  devils  had  possession  of  people.  II« 
talked  to  the  devil  when  he  was  in  folks,  and  the  devil  told  him 
that  he  was  going  to  leave;  and  that  he  was  going  into  another 
person;  that  he  would  be  there  at  a  certain  time;  and  Wesley 
went  to  that  other  person,  and  there  the  devil  was,  prompt  to  the 
minute.  He  regarded  every  conversion  as  an  absolute  warfare  be- 
tween God  and  this  devil  for  the  possession  of  tkat  human  souL 
Honest,  no  doubt.  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  believe  in  human  liberty. 
Honest,  no  doubt.  Was  opposed  to  the  liberty  of  the  colonies. 
Honestly  so.  Mr.  Wesley  preached  a  sermon  entitled,  •'  The  Cause 
and  Cure  of  Earthqtiakes,"  in  which  he  took  the  ground  that 
earthquakes  were  caused  by  sin ;  and  the  only  way  to  stop  them 
was  to  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  No  doubt  an  honest 
man. 

Wesley  and  Whitfield  fell  out  on  the  q-uestion  of  predestination. 
Wesley  insisted  that  God  invited  everybody  to  the  feast.  Whit- 
field  said  He  did  not  invite  those  He  knew  would  not  come. 
Wesley  said  Ho  did.  Whitfield  said :  "Well,  He  didn't  put  plates 
for  them,  anyway."  Wesley  said  He  did.  So  that,  when  they 
were  in  hell,  he  could  show  them  that  there  was  *  seat  left 
for  them.  And  that  Church  that  they  founded  is  still  active.  And 


"WHAT  SHALL   WE  DO  TO  BE  XAVEDt"  21 

probably  no  Church  in  the  world  has  done  so  much  preaching  for 
as  little  money  as  the  Methodists.  "Whitfield  believed  in  slavery 
and  advocated  the  slave  trade.  And  it  was  of  Whitfield  that 
Whittier  made  the  two  lines : 

He  bade  the  slave  ships  speed  from  coast  to  coast, 

Fanned  by  the  wings  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"We  have  lately  had  a  meeting  of  the  Methodists,  and  I  find,  by 
their  statistics,  that  they  believe  they  have  converted  130,000 
folks  in  a  year.  That,  in  order  to  do  this,  they  have  26,000  preach- 
ers, 226,000  Sunday-school  scholars,  and  about  $100,000,000  invested 
in  church  property.  I  find,  in  looking  over  the  history  of  the 
world,  that  there  are  40,000,000  or  50,000.000  of  people  born  a  year, 
and  if  they  are  saved  at  the  rate  of  130,000  a  year,  about  how  long 
will  it  take  that  doctrine  to  save  this  world  ?  Good,  honest  people : 
they  are  mistaken. 

In  old  times  they  were  very  simple.  Churches  used  to  be  like 
barns.  They  used  to  have  them  divided — men  on  that  side,  and 
women  on  this.  A  little  barbarous.  We  have  advanced  since 
then,  and  we  now  find  as  a  fact,  demonstrated  by  experience,  that 
a  man  sitting  by  the  woman  he  loves  can  thank  God  as  heartily  as 
though  sitting  between  two  men  that  he  has  never  been  intro- 
duced to. 

There  is  another  thing  the  Methodists  should  remember,  and 
that  is,  that  the  Episcopalians  were  the  greatest  enemies  they  evrr 
had.  And  they  should  remember  that  the  Free-Thinkers  have 
always  treated  them  kindly  and  well. 

There  is  one  thing  about  the  Methodist  Church  in  the  !N"orth 
that  I  like.  But  I  find  that  it  is  not  Methodism  that  does  that. 
I  find  that  the  Methodist  Church  in  the  South  is  as  much  opposed 
to  liberty  as  the  Methodist  Church  jSTorth  is  in  favor  of  liberty. 
So  it  is  not  Methodism  that  is  in  favor  of  liberty  or  slavery.  They 
differ  a  little  in  their  creed  from  the  rest.  They  do  not  believe 
that  God  does  everything.  They  believe  that  He  does  His  part, 
and  that  you  must  do  the  rest,  and  that  getting  to  heaven  is  a 
partnership  business. 

The  next  church  is  the  Presbyterians— in  my  judgment  the 
worst  of  all,  as  far  as  creed  is  concerned.  This  Church  was  founded 
by  John  Calvin,  a  murderer!  John  Calvin,  having  power  in 
Geneva,  inaugurated  human  torture.  Voltaire  abolished  torture  in 
France.  The  man  who  abolished  torture,  if  the  Christian  religion 
be  true,  God  is  now  torturing  in  hell;  and  the  man  who  inaugu- 
rated torture,  is  now  a  glorified  angel  in  heaven.  It  won't  do. 


22  INQERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

John  Knox  started  this  doctrine  in  Scotland,  and  there  is  this, 
peculiarity  about  Presbyterianism,  it  grows  best  where  the  soil  is 
poorest.  I  read  the  other  day  an  account  of  a  meeting  between 
John  Knox  and  John  Calvin.  Imagine  a  dialogue  between  a  pesti- 
lence and  a  famine  I  Imagine  a  conversation  between  a  block 
and  an  ax!  As  I  read  their  conversation  it  seemed  to  me 
as  though  John  Knox  and  John  Calvin  were  made  for  each  other; 
that  they  fitted  each  other  like  the  upper  and  lower  jaws  of  a  wild 
Least.  They  believed  happiness  was  a  crime ;  they  looked  upon 
laughter  as  blasphemy,  and  they  did  all  "they  could  to  destroy 
every  human  feeling,  and  to  fill  the  mind  with  the  infinite  gloom 
of  predestination  and  eternal  damnation.  They  taught  the  doc- 
trine that  God  had  a  right  to  damn  us  because  He  made  us.  That 
is  just  the  reason  that  He  has  not  a  right  to  damn  us.  There  is 
some  dust.  Unconscious  dust  I  "What  right  lias  God  to  change 
that  unconscious  dust  into  a  human  being,  when  He  knows  that 
human  being  will  sin ;  and  He  knows  that  human  being  will  suffer 
eternal  agony?  "Why  not  leave  him  in  the  unconscious  dust? 
What  right  has  an  infinite  God  to  add  to  the  sum  of  human 
agony  ?  Suppose  I  knew  that  I  could  change  that  piece  of  furni- 
ture into  a  living,  sentient  human  being,  and  I  knew  that  that  being 
would  suffer  untold  agony  forever.  If  I  did  it,  I  would  be  a  fiend. 
I  would  leave  that  being  in  the  unconscious  dust.  And  yet  we 
are  told  that  we  must  believe  such  a  doctrine,  or  we  are  to  \# 
eternally  damned!  It  won't  do. 

In  1S39  there  was  a  division  in  this  Church,  and  they  had  a  law- 
suit to  see  which  was  the  Church  of  God.  And  they  tried  it  by  a 
judge  and  jury,  and  the  jury  decided  that  the  new  school  was  the 
Church  of  God,  and  then  they  got  a  new  trial,  and  the  next  j  un- 
decided that  the  old  school  was  the  Church  of  God,  and  that  settled 
it.  That  Church  teaches  that  infinite  innocence  was  sacrificed  for 
me!  I  don't  want  it!  I  don't  wish  to  go  to  heaven  unless  I  can 
settle  by  the  books,  and  go  there  because  I  ought  to  go  there.  I 
have  said,  and  I  say  again,  I  don't  wish  to  be  a  charity  angel.  1 
have  no  ambition  to  become  a  winged  pauper  of  the  skies. 

The  other  day  a  young  gentlemen,  a  Presbyterian  wrho  had  just 
been  converted,  came  to  me  and  he  gave  me  a  tract,  and  he  told 
me  he  was  perfectly  happy.  Ugh!  Says  I:  "Do  you  think  a 
&reat  many  people  are  going  to  hell  ?"  "Oh,  yes."  "And  you  were 
perfectly  happy'?"  "Well,  he  didn't  know  as  he  was  quite." 
"Wouldn't  you  be  happier  if  they  were  all  going  to  heaven?" 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED!"  33 

"Oh,  yes."  "Well,  then,  you  are  not  perfectly  happy  ?"  "No,  he 
didn't  think  he  was."  Says  I:  "When  you  get  to  heaven,  then 
you  would  be  perfectly  happy  ?"  "Oh,  yes."  "Now,  when  we  are 
only  going  to  hell,  you  are  not  quite  happy;  but  when  we  are  in 
hell,  and  you  in  heaven,  then  you  will  be  perfectly  happy  ?  You 
won't  be  as  decent  when  you  get  to  be  an  angel  as  you  are  now, 
will  you  ?"  "Well,"  he  said,  "that  was  not  exactly  it."  Said  I. 
"Suppose  your  mother  were  in  hell,  would  you  be  happy  in  heaven 
then  ?  "Well,"  he  says,  "I  suppose  God  would  know  the  best  place 
for  mother."  And  I  thought  to  myself,  then,  if  I  was  a  woman,  I 
would  like  to  have  five  or  six  boys  like  that. 

It  will  not  do.  Heaven  is  where  are  those  we  love,  and  those 
who  love  us.  And  I  wish  to  go  to  no  wrorld  unless  I  can  be 
accompanied  by  those  who  love  me  here.  Talk  about  the  con- 
solations of  this  infamous  doctrine.  The  consolations  of  a  doc- 
trine that  makes  a  father  say,  "I  can  be  happy  with  my  daughter 
in  hell ;"  that  makes  a  mother  say,  "I  can  be  happy  with  my  gen- 
erous, brave  boy  in  hell ;"  that  makes  a  boy  say,  "I  can  enjoy  the 
glory  of  heaven  with  the  woman  who  bore  me,  the  woman  toho 
would  have  died  for  me,  in  eternal  agony."  And  they  call  that 
tidings  of  great  joy. 

I  have  not  time  to  speak  of  the  Baptists,— that  Jeremy  Taylor 
said  were  as  much  to  be  rooted  out  as  anything  that  is  the  greatest 
pest  and  nuisance  on  the  earth.  Nor  of  the  Quakers,  the  best  of 
all,  and  abused  by  all.  I  can  not  forget  that  John  Fox,  in  the 
year  of  grace  1640,  was  put  in  the  pillory  and  whipped  from  town 
to  town,  scarred,  put  in  a  dungeon,  beaten,  trampled  upon,  and 
what  for?  Simple  because  he  preached  the  doctrine:  "Thou 
shalt  not  resist  evil  with  evil."  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  enemies/ 
Think  of  what  the  Church  must  have  been  that  day  to  scar  the 
flesh  of  that  loving  man !  Just  think  of  it  ?  I  say  I  have  not 
time  to  speak  of  all  these  sects.  And  of  the  varieties  of  Presby- 
terians and  Campbellites.  The  people  who  think  they  must  dive 
in  order  to  go  up.  There  are  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  these 
sects,  all  founded  upon  this  creed  that  I  read,  differing  simply  in 
degree.  Ah!  but  they  say  to  me:  "  You  are  fighting  something 
that  is  dead.  Nobody  believes  this,  now."  The  preachers  do  not 
believe  what  they  preach  in  the  pulpit.  The  people  in  the  pews 
do  not  believe  what  they  hear  preached.  And  they  say  to  me: 
"Yon  are  fighting  something  that  is  dead.  This  is  all  a  form,  we 
do  not  believe  a  solitary  creed  in  it.  We  sign  it  and  swear  that  we 


24  INGERSOLL'S  NEW  LECTURE, 

believe  it,  but  we  don't.  And  none  of  us  do.  And  all  the  minis- 
ters, they  say  in  private,  admit  that  they  do  not  believe  it,  not 
quite."  I  don't  know  whether  this  is  so  or  not.  I  take  it  that 
they  believe  what  they  preach.  I  take  it  that  when  they  meet  and 
solemnly  agree  to  a  creed,  I  take  it  they  are  honest  and  solemnly 
believe  in  that  creed. 

The  Evangelical  Alliance,  made  up  of  all  orthodox  denominations 
of  the  world,  met  only  a  few  years  ago,  and  here  is  their  creed: 
They  believe  in  the  divine  inspiration,  authority,  and  sufficiency  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures ;  the  right  and  duty  of  private  judgment  in 
the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scriptures,  but  if  you  interpret  wrong 
you  are  damned.  They  believe  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  and 
the  trinity  of  the  persons  therein.  They  believe  in  the  utter 
depravity  of  human  nature.  There  can  be  no  more  infamous 
doctrine  than  that.  They  look  upon  a  little  child  as  a  lump  of 
depravity.  I  look  upon  it  as  a  bud  of  humanity,  that  will,  under 
proper  circumstances,  blossom  into  rich  and  glorious  life. 

Total  depravity  of  human  nature!  Here  is  a  woman  whose 
husband  has  been  lost  at  sea;  the  news  comes  that  he  has  been 
drowned  by  the  ever-hungry  waves,  and  she  waits.  There  is 
something  in  her  heart  that  tells  her  he  is  alive.  And  she  waits. 
And  years  afterward,  as  she  looks  down  toward  the  little 
gate,  she  sees  him;  he  has  been  given  back  by  the  sea,  and  she 
rushes  to  his  arms,  and  covers  his  face  with  kisses  and  with  tears. 
And  if  that  infamous  doctrine  is  true  every  tear  is  a  crime,  and 
ever  kiss  a  blasphemy.  It  won't  do.  According  to  that  doctrine, 
if  a  man  steals  and  repents,  and  takes  back  the  property,  the 
repentance  and  the  taking  back  of  the  property  are  two  other 
crimes  if  he  is  totally  depraved.  It  is  an  infamy.  What  else  do 
they  believe?  "The  justification  of  a  sinner  by  faith  alone," 
without  works,  just  faith.  Believing  something  that  you  don't 
understand.  Of  course  God  cannot  afford  to  reward  \a  man  for 
believing  anything  that  is  reasonable.  God  rewards  only  for 
believing  something  that  is  unreasonable,  if  you  believe  some- 
thing that  you  know  is  not  so.  What  else  ?  They  believe  in  the 
eternal  blessedness  of  the  righteous,  and  in  the  eternal  punishment 
of  the  wicked.  Tidings  of  great  joy  I  They  are  so  good  that  they 
will  pot  associate  with  Universalists.  They  will  not  associate 
with  Unitarians.  They  will  not  associate  with  scientists. 
They  will  only  associate  with  those  who  believed  that  God  so 
loved  the  world  that  He  made  up  His  mind  to  damn  the  most 
of  us. 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?"  & 

Then  they  say  to  me :  "What  do  yo«  propose  ?  You  have  torn 
this  down;  what  do  you  propose  to  give  in  the  place  of  it?"  I 
have  not  torn  the  good  down.  I  have  only  endeavored  to  trample 
out  the  ignorant,  cruel  fires  of  hell.  I  do  not  tear  away  the  pas- 
sage, "  God  will  be  merciful  to  the  merciful."  I  do  not  destroy  the 
promise,  "  If  you  will  forgive  others,  God  will  forgive  you."  I 
would  not  for  anything  blot  out  the  faintest  stars  that  shine  in  the 
horizon  of  human  despair,  nor  in  the  horizon  of  human  hope;  but 
I  wil  do  what  I  can  to  get  that  infinite  shadow  out  of  the  heart^of 
man. 

"  What  do  you  propose  in  place  of  this  ?  " 

Well,  in  the  first  place,  I  propose  good  fellowship — good  friends 
all  around.  No  matter  what  we  believe,  shake  hands  and  let  it  go. 
That  is  your  opinion.  This  is  mine :  "  Let  us  be  friends."  Science 
makes  friends ;  religion — superstition — makes  enemies.  They  say, 
"Belief  is  important."  I  say,  no,  good  actions  are  importan. 
Judge  by  deed,  not  by  creed,  good  fellowship.  We  have 
had  too  many  of  these  solemn  people.  Whenever  I  see  an 
exceedingly  solemn  man,  I  know  he  is  an  exceedingly  stu- 
pid man.  No  man  of  any  humor  ever  founded  any  religion — never. 
Humor  sees  both  sides,  while  reason  is  the  holy  light;  humor  car- 
ries the  lantern,  and  the  man  with  a  keen  sense  of  humor  is  pre- 
served from  the  solemn  stupidities  of  superstition.  I  like  a  man 
who  has  got  good  feeling  for  everybody — good  fellowship.  One 
man  said  to  another : 

"Will  you  take  a  glass  of  wine? " 

"  I  don't  drink." 

"Will  you  smoke  a  cigar?" 

"  I  don't  smoke." 

•'  Maybe  you  will  chew  something?" 

"  I  don't  chew." 

"  Let  us  eat  some  hay." 

"  I  tell  you  I  don't  eat  hay." 

"Well,  then,  good-bye;  for  you  are  no  company  for  man  or 
beast." 

I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  cheerf ullness,  the  gospel  of  good 
nature,  the  gospel  of  good  health.  Let  us  pay  some  attention  to 
our  bodies.  Take  care  of  our  bodies,  and  our  souls  will  take  care 
of  themselves.  Good  health!  And  I  believe  that  the  time  will 
come  when  the  public  thought  will  be  so  great  and  grand  that  it 
will  be  looked  upon  as  infamous  to  perpetuate  disease.  I  believe 


26       -  INGERSOLL'S  N£W  LECTURE, 

the  time  will  come  when  man  will  not-  fill  the  future  with  con- 
sumption and  insanity.  I  believe  the  time  will  come,  when  we 
study  ourselves,  and  understand  the  laws  of  health,  that  we  will 
sny,  "We  are  under  obligation  to  put  the  flags  of  health  in  the 
cheeks  of  our  children."  Even  if  I  got  to  heaven,  and  had  a  harp, 
I  would  hute  to  look.back  upon  my  children  and  grandchildren, 
and  see  them  diseased,  deformed,  crazed,  all  suffering  the  penalties 
of  ^crimes  I  had  committed. 

I,  then,  believe  in  the  gospel  of  good  health,  and  I  believe  in  a 
gospel  of  good  living.  You  can  not  make  any  God  happy  by  fast- 
ing. Let  us  have  good  food,  and  let  us  have  it  well  cooked— and 
it  is  a  thousand  times  better  to  know  how  to  cook  it  than  it  is  to 
•understand  any  theology  in  the  world.  I  believe  in  the  gospel  of 
good  clothes ;  I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  good  houses ;  in  the  gospel 
of  water  and  soap.  I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  intelligence,  in  the 
gospel  of  education.  The  school-house  is  my  cathedral'.  The 
universe  is  my  Bible.  I  believe  in  that  gospel  of  justice  that  we 
must  reap  what  we  sow. 

I  do  not  believe  in  forgiveness.  If  I  rob  Mr.  Smith  and  God  for- 
gives me,  how  does  that  help  Smith.  If  I,  by  slander,  cover  some 
poor  girl  with  the  leprosy  of  some  imputed  crime,  and  she  withers 
away  like  a  blighted  flower,  and  afterward  I  get  forgiveness,  how 
does  that  help  her  ?  If  there  is  another  world  we  have  got  to  set- 
tle. No  bankrupt  court  there.  Pay  down.  The  Christians  say,  that 
among  the  ancient  Jews,  if  you  committed  a  crime^you  had  to  kill 
a  sheep,  now  they  say,  "Charge  it."  "Put  it  upon 'the  slate."  It 
won't  do,  for  every  crime  you  commit  you  must  answer  to  your- 
self and  to  the  one  you  injure.  And  if  you  have  ever  clothed 
another  with  unhappiness,  as  with  a  garment  of  pain,  you  will 
never  be  quite  as  happy  as  though  you  hadn't  done  that  thing. 
No  forgiveness.  Eternal,  inexorable,  everlasting  justice.  That  is 
what  I  believe  in.  And  if  it  goes  hard  with  me,  I  will  stand  it, 
and  I  will  stick  to  my  logic  and  I  will  bear  it  like  a  man. 

And  I  believe,  too,  in  the  gospel  of  liberty,  in  giving  to  others 
what  we  claim  for  ourselves.  I  believe  there  is  room  everywhere 
for  thought,  and  the  more  liberty  you  give  away  the  more  you 
will  have.  In  liberty  extravagance  is  economy.  Let  us  be  just. 
Let  us  be  generous  to  each  other. 

I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  intelligence.  That  is  the  only  lever 
capable  of  raising  mankind.-  Intelligence  must  be  the  savior  of 
this  world.  Humanity  is  the  grand  religion,  and  no  God  can  put 


"WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?"  27 

another  in  hell  in  another  world  who  has  made  a  little  heaven  in 
this.  God  cannot  make  a  man  miserable  if  that  man  has  made 
somebody  else  happy.  God  cannot  hate  anybody  who  is  capable 
of  loving  anybody. 

So  I  beh'eve  in  this  great  gospel  of  generosity. 

"Ah I  but,"  they  say,  "it  won't  do.  You  must  believe."  I  say 
no.  My  gospel  of  health  will  bring  life.  My  gospel  of  intelligence, 
my  gospel  of  good  living,  my  gospel  of  good-fellowship  will  cover 
the  world  with  happy  homes.  My  doctrine  will  put  carpets  upon 
your  floors,  pictures  upon  your  walls.  My  doctrine  will  put  books 
upon  your  shelves,  ideas  in  your  minds.  My  doctriue  Avill  rid  the 
world  of  the  abnormal  monsters  born  of  the  ignorance  of  super- 
stition. My  doctrine  will  give  us  health,  wealth,  and  happiness. 
That  is  what  I  want.  That  is  what  I  believe  in.  Give  us  intelli- 
gence. In  a  little  while  a  man  may  find  that  he  cannot  steal 
without  robbing  himself.  He  will  find  that  he  cannot  murder 
without  assassinating  his  own  joy.  He  will  find  that  every 
crime  is  a  mistake.  He  will  find  that  only  that  man  carries  the 
cross  who  does  wrong,  and  that  the  man  who  dQes  right  the  cross 
turns  to  wings  upon  his  shoulders  that  will  bear  him  upward 
forever.  He  will  find  that  intelligent  self-love  embraces  within 
its  mighty  arms  all  the  human  race. 

"  Oh."  but  they  say  to  me,  "  you  take  away  immortality."  I  do 
not.  If  we  are  immortal  it  is  a  fact  in  nature,  and  we  are  not 
indebted  to  priests  for.it,  nor  to  Bibles  for  it,  and  it  cannot  be 
destroyed  by  unbelief. 

As  long  as  we  love  we  will  hope  to  live,  and  when  the  one  dies 
that  we  love  we  will  say,  "  Oh,  that  we  could  meet  again !"  And 
whether  we  do  or  not,  it  will  not  be  the  work  of  theology.  It  will 
be  a  fact  in  nature.  I  would  not  for  my  life  destroy  one  star  of 
human  hope ;  but  I  want  it  so  that  when  a  poor  woman  rocks  the 
cradle,  and  sings  a  lullaby  to  the  dimpled  darling,  that  she  will  not 
be  compelled  to  believe  that,  ninety-nine  chances  in  a  hundred,  she 
is  raising  kindling-wood  for  hell.  One  world  at  a  time— that  is 
my  doctrine. 

It  is  said  in  the  Testament,  "  Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil 
thereof; "  -and  I  say,  sufficient  unto  each  world  is  the  evil  thereof. 
And  suppose,  after  all,  that  death  does  end  all,  next  to  eternal  joy, 
next  to  being  forever  with  those  we  love  and  those  who  have  loved 
us,  next  to  that  is  to  be  wrapt  in  the  dreamless  drapery  of  eternal 
peace. 


88  INGEKSOLUS  NEW  LECTURE. 

Next  to  eternal  life  is  eternal  death.  Upon  the  shadowy  shore 
of  death  the  sea  of  trouble  casts  no  wave.  Eyes  that  have  been 
curtained  by  the  everlasting  dark  will  never  know  again  the  touch 
of  tears.  Lips  that  have  been  touched  by  eternal  silence  will  neveT 
ntter  another  word  of  grief.  Hearts  of  dust  do  not  break ;  the 
dead  do  not  weep.  And  I  had  rather  think  of  those  I  have  loved, 
and  those  I  have  lost,  as  having  returned,  as  having  become  a 
part  of  the  elemental  wealth  of  the  world — I  would  rather 
think  of  them  as  unconscious  dust — I  would  rather  think  of 
them  as  gurgling  in  the  stream,  floating  in  the  clouds,  bursting  in 
the  foam  of  light  upon  the  shores  of  worlds — I  would  rather  think 
of  them  as  the  inanimate  and  eternally  unconscious,  than  to  have 
even  a  suspicion  that  their  naked  souls  had  been  clutched  by  an 
orthodox  God. 

But  for  me,  I  will  leave  the  dead  where  nature  leaves  them- 
And  whatever  flower  of  hope  springs  up  in  my  heart  I  will  cherish ; 
but  I  can  not  believe  that  there  is  any  being  in  this  universe  who 
has  created  a  human  soul  for  eternal  pain.  And  I  would  rather 
that  every  God  would  destroy  himself;  I  would  rather  that  we  all 
should  go  to  eternal  chaos,  to  black  and  starless  night,  than  that 
just  one  soul  should  suffer  eternal  agony.  I  have  made  up  my 
mind  that  if  there  is  a  God,  ho  will  be  merciful  to  the  merciful. 
Upon  that  rock  I  stand.  That  he  will  forgive  the  forgiving. 
Upon  that  rock  I  stand.  That  every  man  should  be  true  to  him- 
self, and  that  there  is  no  world,  no  star,'  in  which  honesty  is  a 
crime.  And  upon  that  rock  I  stand.  The  honest  man,  the  good, 
kind,  sweet  woman,  the  happy  child,  has  nothing  to  fear,  neither 
in  this  world  nor  the  world  to  come.  And  upon  that  rock  I  stand. 


Ingersoll's  Answer  to  Prof.  Swing^  Dr.  Thomas 
and  Others* 


After  looking  over  the  replies  made  to  his  new  lecture,  Col. 
Ingersoll  was  asked  by  a  Tribune  reporter  what  he  thought  of 
them  ?  He  replied  as  follows : 

"I  think  they  dodge  the  point.  The  real  point  is  this:  If 
salvation  by  faith  is  the  real  doctrine  of  Christianity ,  I  asked  on 
Sunday  before  last,  and  I  still  ask,  why  didn't  Matthew  tell  it  ? 
I  still  insist  that  Mark  should  have  remembered  it,  and  I  shall 
always  believe  that  Luke  ought,  at  least,  to  have  noticed  it.  I 
was  endeavoring  to  show  that  modern  Christianity  has  for  its 
basis  an  interpolation.  I  think  I  showed  it.  The  only  gospel  on 
the  orthodox  side  is  that  of  John,  and  that  was  certainly  not 
written,  or  did  not  appear  in  its  present  form,  until  long  after  the 
others  were  written.  I  know  very  well  that  the  Catholic  Church 
claimed  during  the  Dark  Ages,  and  still  claims,  that  references 
had  been  made  to  the  Gospels  by  persons  living  in  the  first,  second, 
and  third  centuries ;  but  I  believe  such  manuscripts  were  manu- 
factured by  the  Catholic  Church.  For  many  years  in  Europe 
there  was  not  one  person  in  20,000  who  could  read  and  write. 
During  that  time  the  Church  had  in  its  keeping  the  literature  of 
our  world.  They  interpolated  as  they  pleased.  They  created. 
They  destroyed.  In  other  words,  they  did  whatever  in  their  opinion 
was  -necessary  to  substantiate  the  faith.  The  gentlemen  who  saw 
fit  to  reply  did  not  answer  the  question,  and  I  again  call  upon 
the  clergy  to  explain  to  the  people  why,  if  salvation  depended 
upon  belief  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Matthew  didn't  mention  it. 
Some  one  has  said  that  Christ  didn't  make  known  this  doctrine  of 
salvation  by  belief  or  faith  until  after  His  resurrection.  Cer- 
tainly none  of  the  gospels  were  written  until  after  His  resurrec- 
tion ;  and  if  He  made  that  doctrine  known  after  His  resurrection, 

29 


90  INQERSOLL'S  ANSWER 

and  before  His  ascension,  it  should  have  been  in  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke,  a;j  well  as  John. 

The  replies  of  the  clergy  show  that  they  have  not  investigated 
the  subject;  that  they  are  not  well  acquainted  with  the  ]\e\v 
Testament.  In  other  words,  they  have  not  read  it  except  with  the 
regulation  theological  bias.  There  is  one  tiling  I  wish  to  correct 
here.  In  an  editoral  in  the  Tribune  it  was  stated  that  I  had 
admitted  that  Christ  was  beyond  and  above  Buddha,  Zoroaster, 
Confucius,  and  others.  I  didn't  say  so.  Another  point  was  made 
against  me,  and  those  who  made  it  seemed  to  think  it  was  a  good 
one.  In  ray  lecture  I  asked  why  it  was  that  the  Disciples  of  Christ 
wrote  in  Greek,  whereas,  in  fact,  they  understood  only  Hebrew. 
It  is  now  claimed  that*  Greek  was  the  language  of  Jerusalem  at 
that  time;  that  Hebrew  had  fallen  into  disuse;  that  no  one  under- 
stood it  except  the  literati  and  the  highly  educated.  If  I  fell  into 
an  error  upon  this  point  it  was  because  I  relied  upon  the  New 
Testament.  I  find  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  the  Acts  an  ac- 
count of  Paul  having  been  mobbed  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem ;  that 
he  was  protected  by  a  Chief  Captain  and  some  soldiers;  that, 
when  upon  the  stairs  of  the  castle  to  which  he  was  being  taken 
for  protection,  he  obtained  leave  from  the  Captain  to  speak  unto 
the  people.  In  the  fortieth  verse  of  that  chapter  I  find  the  fol- 
lowing; 

"And  when  he  had  given  him  license,  Paul  stood  on  the  stairs 
and  beckoned  with  the  hand  unto  the  people ;  and  when  there  was 
made  a  great  silence  he  spake  unto  them  in  the  Hebrew  tongue, 
saying—" 

And  then  follows  the  speech  of  Paul,  wherein  he  gives  an 
account  of  his  conversion.  It  seems  a  little  curious  to  me  that 
Paul,  for  the  purpose  of  quieting  a  mob,  would  speak  to  that  mob 
in  an  unknown  language.  If  I  were  mobbed  in  the  city  of 
Chicago,  and  wished  to  defend  myself  with  an  explanation,  I  cer- 
tainly would  not  make  that  explanation  in  Choctaw,  even  if  I  un- 
derstood that  tongue.  My  present  opinion  is  that  I  would  speak  in 
English ;  and  the  reason  I  would  speak  in  English  is  because  that 
language  is  generally  understood  in  this  city.  And  so  I  conclude 
from  the  account  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  the  Acts  that 
"Hebrew  was  the  language  of  Jerusalem  at  that  time,  or  that  Paul 
would  not  have  addressed  the  mob  in  that  tongue." 

"  Did  you  read  Mr.  Courtney's  answer  ?  " 

"I  read  what  Mr.  Courtney  read  from  others,  and  think  some  of 
his  quotations  very  good;  and  have  no  doubt  that  the  authors  will 
feel  complimented  by  being  quoted." 

*  But  what  about  there  being  '  belief '  in  Matthew  ?  " 


rO  PROF.  SOWING,  I'll.  THOMAS  AND  OTHE11X.        31 

*  Mr.  Courtney  says  that  certain  people  were  cured  of  diseases 
on  account  of  faith.  Admitting  that  mumps,  measles,  and  whoop- 
ing-cough could  be  cured  in  that  way,  there  is  not  even  a  sugges- 
tion that  salvation  depended  upon  a  like  faith.  I  think  he  can 
hardly  afford  to  rely  upon  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  to 
prove  his  doctrine.  There  is  one  instance  in  which  a  miracle  was 
performed  by  Christ  without  His  knowledge.  And  I  hardly  think 
that  even  Mr.  Courtney  would  insist  that  any  faith  could  have 
been  great  enough  for  that.  The  fact  is,  I  believe  that  all  these 
miracles  were  ascribed  to  Christ  long  after  His  death,  and  that 
Christ  never,  at  any  time  or  place,  pretended  to  have  any  super- 
natural power  whatever.  Neither  do  I  believe  that  He  claimed 
any  supernatural  origin.  He  claimed  simply  to  be  a  man— no  less, 
no  more.  I  don't  believe  Mr.  Courtney  is  satisfied  with  his  own 
reply." 

"  And  now  as  to  Prof.  Swing  ?  " 

"Mr.  Swing  has  been  out  of  the  orthodox  church  so  long  that  he 
seems  to  have  forgotten  the  reasons  for  which  he  left  it.  I  don't 
believe  there  is  an  orthodox  minister  in  the  city  of  Chicago  who 
will  agree  with  Mr.  Swing  that  salvation  by  faith  is  no  longer 
preached.  Prof.  Swing  seems  to  think  it  of  no  importance  who 
wrote  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  In  this  I  agree  with  him. 
Judging  from  what  he  said,  there  is  hardly  difference  enough  of 
opinion  between  us  to  justify  a  reply  on  his  part.  He,  however, 
makes  one  mistake.  I  did  not  in  the  lecture  say  one  word  about 
tearing  churches  down.  I  have  no  objection  to  people  building  all 
the  churches  they  wish.  While  I  admit  that  it  is  a  pretty  sight  to 
see  children  on  a  morning  in  June  going  through  the  fields  to 
the  country  church,  I  still  insist  that  the  beauty  of  that  sight 
doesn't  answer  the  question  how  it  is  that  Matthew  forgot  to  say 
anything  about  salvation  through  Christ.  Prof.  Swing  is  a  man  of 
poetic  temperament;  but  this  is  not  a  poetic  question." 

"  How  did  the  card  of  Dr.  Thomas  strike  you 't " 

"  I  think  the  reply  of  Dr.  Thomas  in  the  best  possible  spirit.  I 
regard  him  to-day  as  the  best  intellect  in  the  Methodist  denomina- 
tion. He  seems  to  have  what  is  generally  understood  as  a  Christ- 
ian spirit.  He  has  always  treated  me  with  perfect  fairness,  and  I 
should  have  said  long  ago  many  grateful  things,  had  I  not  feared  I 
might  hurt  him  with  his  own  people.  He  seems  to  be  by  nature  a 
perfectly  fair  man;  and  I  know  of  no  man  in  the  United  States 
for  whom  I  have  a  pro  founder  respect.  Of  course,  I  don't  agree 
with  Mr.  Thomas,  I  think  in  many  things  he  is  mistaken.  But  1 


82  INGERSOLUS  ANSWER. 

believe  him  to  be  perfectly  sincere.  There  is  one  trouble  about 
/him, — he  is  growing;  and  this  fact  will  no  doubt  give  great  trouble 
lo  many  of  his  brethren.  Certain  Methodist  hazelbrush  feel  a 
.little  uneasy  in  the  shadow  of  this  oak. 

"Are  you  going  to  make  a  formal  reply  to  their  sermons  ?" 
"Not  unless  something  better  is  done  than  has  been.  Of  course 
I  don't  know  what  another  Sabbath  may  bring  forth.  I  am  wait- 
ing. But  of  one  thing  I  feel  perfectly  assured ;  that  no  man  in  the 
United  States,  or  in  the  world,  can  account  for  the  fact,  if  we  are 
to  be  saved  only  by  faith  in  Christ,  that  Matthew  forgot  it,  that 
Luke  said  nothing  about  it,  and  that  Mark  never  mentioned  it  ex- 
cept in  two  passages  written  by  another  person.  Until  that  is 
answered,  as  one  grave-digger  says  to  the  other  in  "Hamlet,"  I 
shall  say:  'Ay,  tell  me  that  and  unyoke."  In  the  meantime,  I 
wish  to  keep  on  the  best  terms  with  all  parties  concerned.  I  can- 
not see  why  my  forgiving  spirit  fails  to  gain  their  sincere  praise." 


The  Covenant  Symbol. 


10 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 


THOMAS    PAINE, 


AS   SHOWN  BT 


DR.  GOODWIN, 
BISHOP  FALLOWS, 
DR.  HATFIELD, 
SIMEON  GILBERT, 


DR.  BLACKBURN, 
PROF.  WILCOX, 
JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN, 
PERE  HYACINTHE, 


AND    OTHERS, 

INCLUDING,   ALSO, 

INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE  ON   THOMAS  PAINE. 


SIMEOIST  GILBERT'S  REPLY. 

(Editor  Advance.) 

Heavy  Cannonading  Against  the  Ingersoll  Citadel — The  Learned 
Editor  Parks  His  Artillery — Twenty-one  Effective  Shots. 

Col.  Ingersoll's  address  on  Thomas  Paine — delivered  in 
Chicago,  January  29th,  1880 — was  in  some  respects  so 
outrageous  as  to  be  best  answered  by  declaring  it  a  prodigy 
of  unfairness.  Its  alleged  facts  in  regard  to  Paine  may  be 
true,  but  some  of  the  assumptions  and  assertions,  right  and 
wrong,  made  by  Col.  Ingersoll,  may  be  profitably  noted: 
\  1.  "  The  man  who  will  tell  the  truth  about  the  dead  is  a 
good  man,  and  for  one  about  this  man,  I  intend  to  tell  just 
as  near  the  truth  as  I  can."  A  good  round  compliment,  at 
the  outset,  from  the  orator  for  himself,  patly  offered !  "The 
man  who  tells  the  truth  is  a  good  man."  True,  since  truth- 
telling  is  a  virtue.  But  what  of  one  who  tells  only  this  or 

11 


W  MISTAKES  OF  INOBRSOLL. 

that  truth;  or  little  bits  of  truth;  who  so  mixes  truth  with 
falsehood,  that  it  can  hardly  be  known  from  falsehood,  but 
is  horribly  distorted  and  perverted?  The  lies  of  slander 
or  superstition  are  no  worse  than  those  of  flattery  or  in- 
fidelity. 

2.  "  Why  would  God  give  an  inspired  book  to  the  world 
and  not  see  to  it  that  it  was  translated  right?"  As  well  ask, 
**  Why  would   God   make  a  man   and  endow  him   with 
reason,  without  seeing  that  he  use  his  reason  aright?" 

3.  "John  Calvin  would  have  liked  to  roast  Prof.  Swing. 
The  church  was  ignorant,  bloody,  relentless."     "  It  waged 
war  against  human  nature."     But  only  because  blind  to 
Borne  of  Christ's  precepts,  and  not  yet  delivered  from  tra- 
ditional error. 

4.  "A  friend  of  man  is  also  a  friend  of  God — if  there  is 
one."     True;  the  true  friend  of  man  will  not  turn  his  back 
to  God.     Nor  is  he  any  friend  of  God  who  has  no  heart  of 
friendship  for  mankind.     There  is  no  schism  between  true 
philanthropy  and  true  piety.     He  who  rejects  God  and 
worships  man  has  a  very  poor  Deity  to  worship,  even  if  he 
worship  himself !     There  are  sham  pretenses  of  philan- 
thropy, as  there  are  also  of  piety.     "  If  there  be  a  God  " 
(and  Mr.  Ingersoll  never  denies  that  perhaps  there  is  one) 
to  go  about  the  country  trying  to  destroy  loving,  grateful 
loyalty  to  Him  is  a  sorry  office  of  friendship  for  man. 

5.  "  Paine  said,  '  To  argue  with  a  man  who  has  renounced 
his  reason  is  like  giving  medicine  to  the  dead.'      This  sen- 
tence ought  to  adorn  the  walls  of  every  orthodox  church." 
Grand!  So  Paul  would  say,  "Prove  all  things."     So  Locke, 
"He  that  takes  away  reason  to  make  way  for  revelation 
puts  out  the  light  of  both."     So  Butler,  "  Reason  is  the 
only  faculty  we  have  to  judge  of  anything,  even  revelation 
itself."     So  Cook,  "I  want  no  pulpit  that  is  not  built  on 


SIMEON  GILBERTS  REPLY.  13 

rendered  reasons."  The  orthodox  of  our  day  generally 
preach  the  reasonableness  of  the  great  doctrines.  We  join 
hands  with  the  rationalists  in  saying  that  faith  can  not  go 
without  or  againt  reason.  We  never  need  go  even  above 
and  beyond  reason  without  finding  reason  for  so  doing.  If 
only  men  could  let  reason  tell  them  when,  and  what,  and 
whom  to  believe,  instead  of  going  against  testimony, 
against  authority,  against  revelation,  in  neglect  and  defiance 
of  reason!  Science  itself,  though  it  carry  them  into  skept- 
icism, would  lead  them  back  to  faith. 

6.  " '  Paine's  Rights  of  Man'  should  be  read  especially 
by  every  minister."     That  depends  on  whether  the  rights 
are  treated  with  proper  regard  to  duties,  or  are  the  rights 
of  those  who  want  a  reckless  license,-  instead   of  lawful 
liberty.     Besides,  not  every  minister  wants  to  take  tartar 
emetic  into  his  stomach. 

7.  "  To  vote  against  the  execution  of  the  king  was  to 
vote  against  his  own  life,  and  there  isn't  a  theologian  who 
lias  ever  maligned  Thomas  Paine  that  had  the  courage  to 
do  that  thing."    Doubtless  there  is  sometimes  a  marvelous 
courage  in  even  the  most  wicked  men;  sometimes  splendid 
heroism  in  otherwise  bad  men,  just  as  there  is  a  wondrous 
and  charming  gift  of  eloquence  sometimes  turned  ungrate- 
fully against  the  divine  Being  who  bestowed  it.     True, 
those  who  malign  Paine  or  Ingersoll  may  not  like  to  be 
martyrs.     But  the  courage  to  stand  by  the  most  sacred 
convictions  and  doctrines,  the  courage  to  oppose  those  who 
in  the  name  of  reason  renounce  reason,  or  in  the  name  of 
morality  defame  religion,  the  courage  to  test  all  popular 
science  and  oratory  by  the  right  standards — this  is  of  a  far 
higher  kind. 

8.  "  Every  abuse  had  been   embalmed    in   Scripture." 
True,  just  as  the  devil  quoted  Scripture,  and  Ingersoll 


14  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

makes  capital  out  of  the  Tract  Society  and  the  New  York 
Observer.  But  Scripture  stands  firm  and  rebukes  those 
who  so  misinterpret  and  pervert  its  meaning. 

9.  "  By  some  unaccountable  infatuation  belief  has  been, 
and  still  is,  considered  of  immense  importance."     True,  but 
not  the  mere  belief  of  the  head,  not  "  a  mere  intellectual 
conviction"  which  says  "  Yes,"  but  that  which,  while  it 
credits,  also  trusts  and  obeys — that  faith  which  according 
to  Coleridge's  definition,  is  "  the  synthesis  of  the  reason 
and  the  will,"  and  which  naturally  results  in  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  whole  character,  the  highest  possible  inspiration 
to  a  true  life. 

10.  Paine  asserted  "  any  system  of  religion  that  has  any- 
thing in  it  that  shocks  the  mind  of  a  child  can  not  be  a  true 
system."    "Beautiful  sentiment  !"    But  that  depends  on 
what  the  shock  is,  which  may  be  nothing  worse  than  a 
shock  of  surprise  and  wonder,  or  a  shock  of  conviction  of 
sin,  or  a  shock  of  the  fear  of  righteous  judgment.  Whatever 
shocks  a  child's  mind,  or  a  man's  mind  by  running  counter 
to  its  native  intuitions  or  its  common-sense  judgments,  or 
its  sound  reasonings,  is  undoubtedly  false.     Infidelity  like 
Ingersoll  shocks  all  noble  and  tender  sensibilities,  the  most 
conscientious  and  rational  beliefs.     What  more  shocking 
to  a  good  child  than  to  be  told,  "  There  is  no  God,"  "no 
soul,"  "  no  truth  in  religion!  " 

11.  "  Why  any  one  should  be  punished  for  acting  honor- 
ably in  accordance  with  reason  " — "  endowed  with  reason 
simply   that   our   souls    may  be  caught   in    its  toils  and 
snares  " — "  given  reason  simply  that  we  may  through  faith 
ignore  its  deductions  and  avoid  its  conclusions  " — such  an 
idea  is,  as  Ingersoll  says,  preposterous.     But  why  charge 
it  against  the  "  entire  orthodox  world?"     Such  a  charge  i& 
totally  unfair,  and  can  only  be  made  by  a  mind  blinded  to 


SIJJEON  GILBER1\S  LEPLY.  15 

just  discrimination  by  unreasoning  prejudice.  The  "  or- 
thodox "  object  only  to  making  reason  a  "  goddess,"  and 
erecting  her  altar  under  the  shadow  of  the  Eternal  Throne, 
and  substituting  in  her  name  the  worship  of  self  for  the 
worship  of  God. 

12.  "  I  deny  that  whosoever  believeth,  etc."     Who  is  this 
denier  of  Christ's  own  doctrine?     Not  one  who  lacks  rever- 
ence only,  but  reason;  for  he  takes  the  belief  required  to 
be  one  which  "no  man  can  control,"  and  pronounces  it 
"  senseless,"  "  infamous,"  ridiculous,  as  if  it  were  better  to 
"  malign  "  Christ  than  Paine. 

13.  "Gratitude  is  a  virtue,  ingratitude  a  crime,  whether 
there  be  a  God  or  not."     True  conscience  in  every  unper- 
verted  mind  says:     "  I  ought  to  be  grateful."     But  what  i& 
there  which   can  both  require  and  produce  gratitude  so 
well  as  religion?     There  is  nothing  else  so  distinctive  in 
the  Christian  religion  as  its  appeals  to  the  sentiment  of 
gratitude.     It  is  in  this  respect  absolutely  unique.     In  this 
precisely  is  seen  the  supremacy  of  its  power,  the  sweetness 
of  its  constraint,  the  honorableness  of  its  motives.     "  If 
there  be  a  God,"  and  He  has  given  us  a  Kevelation,  and  a 
Saviour,  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  right — "  ingratitude  is  a  crime." 

14.  "  Christianity  is  better  now  because  there  is  less  of 
it " — "Why  not  say,  because  there  is  more   reason  with  a 
less  "  blind  "  or  "  unreasoning  "  faith? 

15.  "There  is  but  one  test  by  which  to  measure  a  man. 
Did   he   leave   this  world   better  than  he  found  it?     Of 
course  he  did,  if  he  was  a  bad  man,  for  he  made  it  worse 
while  in  it,  especially  if  he  became  great,  and  only  the 
more  dangerous  on  account  of  his  shining  gifts  and  un- 
principled virtues.      Besides,  if  he  did  really  leave  the 
world  better  for  his  havingjived  in  it.  was  it  better  because 
he  designed  and  accomplished  the  good,  or  only  because 


16  MISTAKES  OF  1NOERSOLL. 

the  Lord  made  a  good  use  of  him  and  overruled  his  life  for 
the  world's  benefit? 

16.  "  The  church  is  and  always  has  been  incapable  of  a 
forward  movement."     True  only  of  the  "church"  which 
"  has  reduced  Spain  to  a  guitar,  Italy  to  a  hand-organ,  and 
Ireland   to   exile,"   and   hardly    true   now    even    of    that 
ecclesiasticism. 

17.  "  As  the  human  race  has  advanced,  the  church  had 
lost,  power."     Yes,  every  church,  so  far  as  its  creed  is  "•  the 
ignorant  past  bullying  the  enlightened  present;"  but  the 
race  has  not  advanced  by  any  mere  creedless  negations. 
No  nation  has  advanced  by  cutting  loose  from  its  religion. 
*'  Doubters  and  infidels  "  are  not  to  be  put  with  "  investi- 
gators "  as  saviors.     Events  are  heralded  by  ideas,  positive 
convictions.     "  Bibles  and  creeds,"   so  far  as  the  creeds  are 
true  to  the  Bible,  have  been  the  advancing  and  triumphing 
forces.     It  was  Paints  political  creed  which  gave  him 
power — his  belief  in  liberty.     His  reason  would  have  had 
far  more  power  if  usedybr  religion  instead  of  against  it. 

18.  "  I  deny  that  the  worship  of  God  is  the  end  and 
object  of  this  life.     I  deny  it.     The  Infinity  needs  nothing 
from  me.     I  can  neither  hurt  Him  nor  help  Him."     But 
what  if  you  do  not  treat  Him  fairly,  justly,  or  even  decently? 
"What  if  you  use  against  Him  the  reason  and  eloquence  He 
gave  you?    "What  if  you  do  not  say  "  Thank  you"  for  life, 
health,  reason,  liberty,  home,  while  yet  "  ingratitude  is  the 
blackest  of  crimes  ?" 

19.  "Virtue  does  not  consist  in  believing,  but  in  doing." 
"  Sublime  truth,"  indeed  !     But  to  believe  as  Christianity 
requires  is  to  do  something  more  sublime,  more  manly, 
more  womanly,  more  child-like,  than  any  mere  pioneer  in 
modern  thought  or  science  or  patriotism  ever  dreamed. 

20.  "  Is   there   any   God  in   the   heavens   who  hates  a 


SIMEON  GILBERT'S  REPLY.  IT 

patriot f  "  A  God  who  hates  "  is  not  the  God  who  loves, 
but  the  God  of  love  must  condemn  the  ungodly,  if  not 
inhuman,  patriot  who  cares  for  his  own  farnilj  or  country  > 
without  proper  regard  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  idolizes 
patriotism  as  a  substitute  for  philanthropy  and  even  piety. 
21.  "  Ought  the  sailor  to  throw  away  his  compass  and  de- 
pend entirely  upon  the  fog?"  The  witty  rhetorician  could 
not  ask  himself  a  better  question.  Ought  a  man  to  throw 
away  the  Bible,  and  with  it  all  fairness  of  interpretation, 
and  depend  entirely  upon  his  doubts?  Ought  a  reasoner  to 
throw  away  his  candor  and  his  power  of  making  just  dis- 
criminations, and  depend  wholly  on  his  prejudices? 

Col.  Ingersoll  should  Discriminate,  and  be  Fair. 

The  good  and  the  bad  in  this  world  are  strangely  mixed. 
A  constant  necessity  is  upon  us  to  use  vigilant  discrimina- 
tion. And  yet  some  minds  seem  16  be  incapable  of  exer- 
cising any  discriminative  fairness  in  their  judgments. 
Individuals  may  be  seen  any  day  who  are  the  veriest  slaves 
of  their  one-sided  prejudices.  Public  opinion,  too,  is  often, 
from  the  same  cause,  cruelly  unjust. 

There  are  those  who  have  the  sense  to  perceive  the  things 
that  differ;  who  have  the  courage  to  be  candid;  who  are 
too  thoroughly  dominated  by  the  spirit  of  fairness,  to  allow 
themselves  to  be  victimized  by  any  sort  of  capricious  and 
perverse  or  merely  traditional  judgments;  and  who  are 
perfectly  convinced  that,  in  the  steady  course  of  things, 
nothing  is  gained  to  the  public  good  by  refusing  justice  to 
any  man. 

Thomas  Paine  as  a  patriot,  gifted  with  a  very  rare  genius 
for  seeing  certain  political  facts,  and  for  saying  certain 
truths,  at  exactly  the  right  time,  and  in  a  way  to  produce 
extraordinarily  influential  and  beneficent  results,  and  noble 


18  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

consistency  of  devotion  to  the  cause  of  human  liberty,  as 
he  understood  it,  is  one  thing.  "Tom  Paine"  as  the 
"infidel,"  reviling  the  Bible,  misconceiving  and  hating 
Christianity,  scoffing  at  some  of  the  deepest  and  most 
sacred  instincts  of  the  human  heart,  and  often  indulging  in 
most  indecent  and  blasphemous  raillery,  k  another  thing. 
Yet  the  two  were  combined  in  one  person.  His  pamphlets 
entitled  "Common  Sense"  and  "The  Crisis,"  published 
about  the  time  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  were 
undoubtedly  among  the  most  effective  political  pamphlets 
ever  published.  For  the  good  he  did  in  this  way  and  for 
his  other  eminent  services  to  the  cause  of  national  emanci- 
pation and  human  freedom,  in  that  great  crisis,  he  will 
ever  be  gratefully  remembered  by  Americans.  As  for  his 
"Age  of  Reason,"  written  later  in  life,  when  the -author 
had  come  under  the  influence  of  that  fierce  spasm  of  fanat- 
ical atheism,  which  fifrly  expressed  itself  in  the  French 
"  reign  of  terror,"  it  is  one  of  the  worst  of  books.  In  place 
of  candor  and  fair  reasoning,  one  finds  in  it  the  substitution , 
of  dogmatic  assumption,  willfully  blind,  passionately  bitter 
perversion  and  caricature. 

Col.  Ingersoll's  eulogy  on  Thomas  Paine  contains  much 
that  is  true  and  brilliantly  said,  as  well  as  much  that  is 
false  and  smartly  put.  His  sketch  of  Paine's  political 
career  and  vicissitudes,  both  in  America  and  in  France,  is 
interesting.  Paine's  claim  upon  the  grateful  remembrance 
of  his  countrymen,  as  a  forward  champion  of  independence 
and  liberty,  in  our  first  great  national  crisis,  is  just. 
Whatever  must  be  thought  of  his  passionate  screeds  of 
infidel  vituperation,  which  Paine  afterwards  flung  at  the 
Bible  and  Christianity,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge 
any  real  services  rendered  by  him,  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  the  cause  of  human  progress. 


BISHOP  WALLOWS. 

(Photographed  by  QentOa.) 
80 


BISHOP  FALLOWS'  MEPLY.  2* 


BISHOP  FALLOWS'  REPLY. 


Col.  Ingersoll  at  His  Old  Tricks — His  Defense  of  Thomas  Paine  Only 
a  New  Cover  Under  Which  He  is  Fighting  the  Church. 

A  gentleman  in  our  midst,  well  known  to  the  community 
and  to  the  nation  at  large  as  an  orator  of  eloquence,  has 
recently  lectured  upon  the  infidel  writer,  Thomas  Paine. 
I  have  no  fault,  whatever,  to  find  with  anything  which  may 
have  been  said  respecting  the  eminent  services  Mr.  Paine 
rendered  the  American  Republic  at  the  beginning  of  its 
history.  I  think  that  Christian  people,  as  well  as  those  who, 
par  excellence,  call  themselves  free  thinkers,  will  be  willing 
to  accord  to  him  his  just  meed  of  praise.  It  is  not  my 
purpose  now  to  enter  into  any  argument  on  that  side 
of  the  subject.  I  do  not  touch  on  the  point  that  the 
extravagant  praise  ^vhich  has  been  accorded  him  is  not 
fomided  upon  a  just  appreciation  of  the  political  services 
rendered.  I  will  not  touch  on  the  thought  that  there  may 
have  been  a  power  behind  the  throne,  as  there  doubtless 
was,  urging  on  and  giving  weight  to  his  publications. 

"What  I  want  to  do  is  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  crusade  (I  think  I  may  call  it  tirade) 
against  Christianity,  has  failed  to  discriminate  between 
things  which  are  entirely  different;  that  he  has  created 
the  impression  that  Christianity  and  the  Christian  Church 
of  a  past  age  are  one  and  the  same,  and  that  all  the 
corruptions  of  Christianity  are  to  be  charged  over  against 
it.  He  has  repeatedly  used  the  word  church/  he  has  not 
qualified  it,  but  has  given  it  in  its  broadest  sense,  and  made 


S3  •  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

the  whole  church  of  Jesus  Christ  the  object  of  unreasonable 
onslaught. 

Ingersoll  has  failed  as  a  logician,  as  a  man  of  erudition, 
to  distinguish  between  things  that  are  entirely  different. 
He  has  confounded  Christianity  with  the  church,  arid  is 
attempting  to  show  that  the  former  has  been  and  is 
responsible  for  the  faults  of  the  latter.  Everybody  must 
agree  with  him  that  the  church  has  done  what  will  bring 
the  blush  to  the  cheek  of  any  man,  and  no  one  can  under- 
take t^  defend  such  deeds.  Ingersoll  sees  no  distinction 
between  the  church  as  an  earthly  institution  and  the 
fundamental  pi'inciples  upon  which  it  was  founded,  and 
which  are  of  divine  origin.  He  has  assailed  Christianity 
in  many  ways,  and  the  defense  of  Thomas  Paine  is  only 
a  new  cover  under  which  he  is  fighting  the  same  battle. 

A  just  and  obvious  distinction  must  be  made  between 
Christianity  as  a  civilizing  agent,  affecting  men  in  their 
varied  earthly  relations,  and  Christianity  as  a  spiritual 
power,  securing  everlasting  life  to  individual  believers. 
We  have  the  right,  and  all  historians  exercise  it,  whether 
friendly  or  hostile  to  Christianity,  to  speak  of  a  Christian 
civilization  in  contradistinction  to  pagan  civilization,  or 
&  Mohammedan  civilization,  meaning  thereby  a  civilization 
in  which  Christian  ideas  prevail,  and  in  which  the  whole 
community  share.  Albert  Barnes  would  call  the  far- 
reaching  influences  of  these  ideas  the  "  radiations "  of 
Christianity — the  influences  which  have  gone  beyond  the 
direct  agency  of  the  Christian  system  as  a  soul-saving 
power. 

These  influences  are  felt  even  by  the  leaders  of  modern 
thought,  who  may  be  regarded  as  unfriendly  to  spiritual 
Christianity.      They  are  compelled  to  a  greater  or  less  de-^ 
gree  to  recognize  the  fundamental  assumption  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  existence  of  a  first  great  cause. 


BISHOP  FALLOWS'  REPLY. 


What  Messrs.  Spencer,  Darwin,  Mill,  Tyndall  and  Paine  Say  of  the 
Divine  Existence — Paine  Believes  in 'One  God  and  Immortality. 

Mr.  Spencer,  whatever  may  be  his  confession  of  ignorance 
of  what  the  infinite  may  be,  yet  admits  its  existence  and 
vigorously  defends  it.  The  ultimate  religious  truth  of  the 
highest  possible  certainty  is  "  that  the  power  which  the 
universe  manifests  to  us  is  utterly  inscrutable."  "Appear- 
ance without  reality  is  unthinkable."  "  To  say  that  we 
can  not  know  the  absolute  is,  by  implication,  to  affirm  that 
there  is  an  absolute." 

Mr.  Darwin  says :  "  The  question  whether  there  exist* 
a  creator  or  ruler  of  the  universe  has  been  answered  in  the 
affirmative  by  the  highest  intellects  that  have  ever  lived." 
Again  he  says  :  "  An  omniscient  creator  must  have  fore- 
seen every  consequence  which  results  from  the  law  imposed 
by  him."  And  again:  "An  omnipotent  and  an  omniscient 
creator  ordains  everything  and  foresees  everything."  That 
is  going  further  than  some  Christian  college  professors 
can  go. 

Says  J.  Stuart  Mill,  in  an  essay  on  Theism:  "I  think  it 
must  be  allowed  that,  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge, 
the  adaptation  in  nature  affords  a  large  balance  of  proba- 
bility in  favor  of  creation  by  intelligence." 

Thomas  Paine  himself  says:  "  /  believe  in  one  God  and 
no  more,  and  I  hope  for  happiness  hereafter" 

In  a  lecture  at  Manchester,  delivered  after  his  Belfast  ad- 
dress, Prof.  Tyndall,  after  speaking  of  the  wonders  and 
mysteries  surrounding  us,  says:  "Can  it  be  there  is  no 
being  or  thing  in  nature  that  knows  more  about  these 
matters  than  I  do?  Do  I,  in  my  ignorance,  represent  the 
highest  knowledge  of  these  things  existing  in  this  universel 
Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  man  who  puts  that  question  t* ' 


34  MISTAKES  OF  INGER30LL. 

himself,  if  he  be  not  a  shallow  man,  if  he  be  a  man  capable 
of  being  penetrated  by  a  profound  thought,  will  never 
answer  the  question  by  professing  the  creed  of  atheism 
which  lias  been  so  lightly  attributed  to  me." 

Friends,  I  would  sooner  err  with  Bacon  and  Darwin 
and  Tyndall  and  Huxley,  and  even  Thomas  Paine,  believ- 
ing in  God's  existence,  than  put  my  belief  on  this  theme 
gide  by  side  with  the  man  who  would  fain  cheapen  what 
might  be  a  splended  reputation  in  endeavoring  to  fasten 
the  malignant  failings  of  mankind  upon  the  very  name  of 
Deity  ! 

Christianity  does  not  create  civilization.  It  came  in 
contact  with  the  highest  civilization  of  the  ancient  world, 
— civilizations,  remember,  which  were  the  outgrowth 
mainly  of  the  religious  principle,  and  aimed  to  make  them 
Christian  civilizations.  The  followers  of  Christ  have  been 
recreant  to  the  principles  He  taught.  Christianity  has 
been  corrupted.  „ 

Ingersoll  said  in  his  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine:  "But 
the  church  is  as  unforgiving  as  ever,  and  still  wonders  why 
any  infidel  should  be  wicked  enough  to  endeavor  to  destroy 
her  power.  I  will  tell  the  church  why  I  hate  it. 

"You  have  imprisoned  the  human  mind ;  jou  have  been  the  enemy  of 
liberty;  you  have  burned  us  at  the  stake,  roasted  us  before  slow  fires, 
torn  our  flesh  with  irons ;  you  have  covered  us  with  chains,  treated  us  as 
outcasts;  you  have  filled  the  world  with  fear;  you  have  taken  our  wives 
and  children  from  our  arms;  you  have  confiscated  our  property;  you 
have  denied  us  the  rights  to  testify  in  courts  of  justice ;  you  have  branded 
us  with  infamy ;  you  have  torn  out  our  tongues ;  you  have  refused  us 
burial.  In  the  name  of  your  religion,  you  have  robbed  us  of  every 
right;  and  after  having  inflicted  upon  us  every  evil  that  can  be  inflicted 
in  this  world,  you  have  fallen  upon  your  knees,  and  with  clasped  hands 
Implored  your  God  to  finish  the  holy  work  in  hell." 

There  should  be  no  dissenting  from  this.  The  arraign- 
ment is  a  strong  but  a  just  one.  Fanaticism  lias  disturbed 


BISHOP  FALLOWS'  REPLY.  25 

its  truths,  zeal  lias  hardened  into  bigotry,  enthusiasm  has 
degenerated  into  burning  wrath,  puerile  glosses  and  worse 
than  childish  interpretations  have  been  taken  as  the  reve- 
lation of  God  Himself.  We  know  that  a  Galileo  has  been 
forced  to  recant  the  truth;  a  Copernicus  has  been  in  mortal 
fear  of  his  life;  a  Roger  Bacon  persecuted  and  tormented; 
the  beautiful  and  philosophical  Hypatin  was  rent  limb 
from  limb  by  the  infuriated  monks.  Libraries  have  been 
burnt;  justice  has  been  denied.  Liberty  has  been  trampled 
upon.  The  mercy  of  God  has  been  bought  and  sold.  Fires 
have  curled  around  the  bodies  of  the  martyrs  of  the  truth, 
as  it  was  hoped  the  flames  of  hell  would  be  kindled  around 
body  and  soul  in  the  world  to  come. 

Ingersoll's  Defective  Logic— The  Church  and  Christianity  Not 
Identical — Dr.  Draper's  Explanation. 

But  why  enumerate?  We  will  plead  "guilty  "  for  the 
church  on  every  fearful  count  in  the  long  and  terrible  in- 
dictment. But  the  church  is  not  Christianity.  In  no  way 
or  manner  can  Christ  or  His  apostles  be  arraigned  for  the 
inhuman  and  unchristian  acts  of  their  professed  followers. 
It  is  unfair  in  the  highest  degree  for  any  man  claiming  to 
be  a  candid  investigator,  and  a  faithful  historian,  to  seem 
to  implicate  them  in  such  misdeeds. 

Neither  is  the  church  of  the  present  responsible  for  the 
sins  of  the  church  of  the  past.  No  logic  can  fasten  the 
guilt  of  the  transgression  of  the  father  upon  the  children. 
The  fathers  may  have  eaten  sour  grapes  and  the  children's 
teeth  set  on  edge,  but  while  the  effects  of  the  acidity 
are  experienced  by  the  children,  they  did  not  do  the 
eating.  The  iniquities  of  the  fathers  shall  be  visited  upon 
the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generations,  but  the 
sin  never! 


26  MISTAKES  OF  INGEIt&OLL 

Let  the  sword  be  unsparingly  used  against  the  corrup- 
tions of  the  faith.  Let  righteous  indignation  flame  against 
all  the  unchristian  additions  which  have  been  made  to  the 
Bublime  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Let  the  anathemas  of 
every  pope  in  Romanism  or  Protestantism  against  free 
inquiry  and  the  victorious  march  of  the  intellect  be  hurled 
back.  This  discrimination  between  the  principles  of 
Christianity  and  the  teachings  and  practices  of  the  church 
has  been  recognized  by  writers  of  eminence  seemingly 
hostile  to  Christianity,  however  much  they  may  have  con- 
founded the  two  or  confused  the  public  mind  in  their 
treatment  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Dr.  Draper  says:  For  centuries  after  Christianity  was  the  established 
religion  of  Europe,  it  failed  to  bear  its  natural  fruit,  because  its  lot  was 
cast  among  a  peopie  whose  ignorance  compelled  them  to  be  supersti- 
tious, and  who,  on  account  of  their  superstition,  defaced  a  system  which, 
In  its  original  purity,  they  were  unable  to  receive. 

I  The  intellectual  bondage,  then,  of  the  dark  ages  was  not 
owing  to  the  teachings  of  Christianity,  but  to  their  per- 
yersion.  But  Mr.  Ingersoll  says 

In  all  ages  reason  has  been  regarded  as  the  enemy  of  religion. 
Nothing  has  been  considered  so  pleasing  to  the  Deity  as  a  total  denial 
of  the  authority  of  your  own  mind.  Self-reliance  has  been  thought 
deadly  sin;  and  the  idea  of  living  and  dying  without  the  aid  and  con- 
ftolation  of  superstition  has  always  horrified  the  church.  By  some 
unaccountable  infatuation,  belief  has  been  and  still  is  considered  of 
immense  importance.  All  religions  have  been  based  upon  the  idea  that 
God  will  forever  reward  the  true  believer,  and  eternally  damn  the  man 
who  doubts  or  denies  Belief  is  regarded  as  the  one  essential  thing. 
To  practice  justice,  to  love  mercy,  is  not  enough. 

Col.  Ingersoll,  the  propounder  of  the  "  new  religion  "  has 
omitted  to  state  that  the  Old  Testament  throughout  teaches, 
in  addition,  that  it  is  man's  duty  to  walk  humbly  before 
God.  To  practice  justice,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  before  God  is  the  religion  of  the  Bible  and  of 
Christianity 


BISHOP  FALLOWS  REPLY.  27 

This  is  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  is 
illustrated  in  not  a  few  of  the  alleged  incredible  stories  of 
the  book.  To  come  and  tell  Chicago  people  ench  truths, 
of  which  Ingersoll  apparently  was  to  be  the  great  apostle, 
is  to  repeat  enunciations  four  thousand  years  old.  The 
Canaanites  might  well  be  the  executioners  of  revoltingly 
evil  tribes  and  nations;  and  much  else  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  its  caviled-at  facts,  is  the. soundest  philosophy. 

Science  is  welcomed  by  religion,  but  not  the  science 
falsely  so  called;  philosophy  is  welcomed,  but  not  the 
counterfeit  of  vain  conceits. 

The  Important  Factors  in  Paine's  Life — The  Bishop  and  Ingersoll 
Concerning  the  So-called  Church  Persecutions. 

Paine's  religion  has  been  summed  up  in:  "  The  world  is 
my  country,  and  to  do  good  is  my  religion."  It  is  strange 
that  Colonel  Ingersoll,  who  takes  such  pains  to  abuse  the 
Bible,  should  have  overlooked  its  fundamental  teachings. 

Mr.  Paine  himself,  in  his  intellectual  nature  and  in  his 
political  history,  was  the  product  of  the  forces  which  were 
rife  at  the  time  on  this  continent  and  in  Europe.  He 
represented  in  his  "  Rights  of  Man  "  and  in  his  "  Common 
Sense,"  and  in  his  political  pamphlets  the  ideas  which 
were  prevalent,  ideas  which  had  been  actualized  in 
America's  short,  but  glorious,  history.  .  In  his  u  Age  of 
Reason  "  he  represented  the  ideas  which  were  dominant  in 
the  French  revolution. 

Paine  was  the  son  of  a  Quaker,  and  I  attribute  his 
correct  life,  if  that  life  did  at  the  end  fall  into  social  eclipse^ 
to  their  healthful  influence. 

Paine  was  also  for  a  short  time  a  dissenting  minister,  and 
preached.  His  mind  was  susceptible  to  all  the  views 
about  him,  and  he  did  not  come  to  this  country  to  forward 


28  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

liberty,  but  simply  to  make  his  living  or  fortune.  His 
speeches  and  writings  were  characterized  by  Anglo-Saxon 
strength,  vigor,  and  terseness,  but  when  he  went  to  France 
he  swung  from  the  moorings  of  early  life  and  became  sat- 
urated with  the  views  of  the  French  encyclopedists  and 
infidels. 

The  arrogant,  self-styled  Church  of  Christ  which  caused 
the  bloody  revolution  in  France,  deserved  the  terrible 
chastisement  it  received.  That  power  which  was 
seated  upon  the  seven  hills;  which  had  arrogated 
to  itself  not  only  spiritual  but  temporal  sover- 
eignty; which  placed  its  feet  literally  on  the  necks  of 
kings  and  princes;  which  exercised  a  spiritual  despotism 
over  the  minds  and  consciences  of  man;  which 'went  into 
the  deepest  recesses  of  the  most  sacred  trusts  of  the  heart; 
which  claimed  the  prerogatives  of  God  himself — this  was 
the  very  power  which  hurried  on  all  this  madness  and  ruin 
of  the  French  revolution  to  their  culmination  in  the  sub- 
stitution of  a  nude  street-walker  as  an  object  of  worship. 
Ingersoll  told  the  truth  when  he  said  that  "  Voltaire  had 
driven  a  dagger  into  the  heartless  bosom  of  Rome."  As 
Sir  Isaac  Taylor  has  well  said  "  the  old  heathen  Roman 
was  far  more  human  than  his  ecclesiastical  successor,  and 
there  was  not  one  who  would  not  fly  from  a  Roman 
inquisitor  to  the  feet  of  the  Roman  legionary  for  mercy 
and  life." 

Ingersoll's  Fatal  Mistake— True  Christianity  Not  Within  Range  of 
the  Ingersoll  Guns. 

But  I  insist  that  Ingersoll's  indictment  does  not  cover 
the  whole  case.  Should  Ingersoll  go  before  a  court,  and 
say  he  hated  the  law,  he  would  be  requested  to  qualify  or 
be  considered  mad.  It  was  law  that  sent  Christ  to  the 
cross,  the  martyrs  to  the  stake,  and  which  has  done  much 


BISHOP  FALLOWS'  REPLY.  29 

of  the  wretchedness  of  earth,  but  law  is  not  universally  a 
scourge  and  an  evil.  I  have  never  been  a  member  of  the 
attacked  kirk  of  Scotland,  nor  was  I  brought  up  a  Pres- 
byterian— those  bodies  can  take  care  of  themselves.  Yet 
I  must  deny  that  any  Protestant  body  could  be  justly 
called  the  "  twin  sister  of  the  inquisition."  One  can  count 
on  his  fingers,  almost,  the  number  of  persons  who  were  put 
to  death  by  Protestants  for  religious  belief  or  non-belief. 
Such  rare  occurrences  were  due  to  some  branch  of  the  tree 
momentarily  lacking  its  nutriment,  whereas  the  steady 
practice  of  Rome  showed  a  tree  poisoned  from  topmost 
twig  to  deepest  root. 

The  fatal  charge  must  be  confessed,  that  Ingersoll  has 
not  discriminated  between  the  branches  of  the  church,  or 
between  the  Church  of  Christ  and  Christianity.  This 
failure  is  so  great  as  to  disarm  the  whole  philippic  of  its 
weight,  and  it  might  be  denied  that  Christianity  was  the 
religion  of  which  he  had  been  the  assailant.  The  Protest- 
ant church  is  not  a  sister  of  the  inquisition.  Christ  and 
His  apostles  can  not  be  arraigned  for  the  corruptions  which 
Ingersoll  has  noted. 

The  Bishop's  Closing  Words  —  Peace.  Prosperity  and  True 
Christianity  Inseparable. 

Let  the  individual  man  present  the  highest  type  of  per- 
sonal preparation,  with  every  appetite,  desire,  and  natural 
perfection,  subordinated  to  the  moral  reason,  to  his  highest 
spiritual  being.  Let  our  homes  be  a  sacred  retreat  where 
the  wife  and  mother  shall  not  play  the  part  of  a  scold  nor 
the  husband  and  father  the  part  of  a  tyrant — homes  in 
which  there  shall  be  no  scorching  blasts  of  passion  nor 
polar  storms  of  coldness  and  hate;  homes  in  which  happy 
children  shall  ever  see  the  beauty  of  love  and  the  beauty 


30  MISTAKES  OF  IAOERSOLL. 

of  holiness;  homes  cheered  by  music,  refined  by  books, 
and  gladdened  with  songs;  homes  of  sympathy,  homes 
of  self-sacrifice,  homes  of  devotion,  homes  of  undying 
affection;  homes  which  would  lure  the  angels  from  the 
felicities  and  fellowships  of  the  upper  paradise  to  dwell  in 
these  bowers  of  earthly  bliss. 

Let  every  form  of  social  evil  be  banished  from  the  world, 
from  the  maddening  bowl  '•  which  biteth  like  a  serpent  - 
and  stingeth  like  an  adder,"  to  the  "  steps  of  her  that  take 
hold  on  death."  Let  every  personal  right  be  given  to  man 
— the  right  of  property  in  the  earth;  the  right  to  his  share 
of  the  multitudinous  forms  of  material  blessings;  the  right 
to  property  in  ideas,  to  property  in  character  and  reputa- 
tion— and  the  venomous  slanderer  no  more  walk  the  earth. 
Let  every  duty  growing  out  of  these  rights  be  faithfully 
performed.  Let  the  rights  of  woman  be  maintained,  she 
being  placed,  not  beneath  man's  feet,  but  by  his  side,  with 
every  faculty  of  her  nature  called  out,  and  not  repressed. 
Let  the  rights  of  children  be  respected  and  the  most  tender, 
judicious  and  elevating  educational  influences  be  thrown 
around  them.  Let  all  the  antagonisms  between  capital 
and  labor  forever  cease — the  laborer  no  longer  be  an  eye- 
servant,  but  receive  his  honest  due  for  his  honest  work  and 
yet  have  time  to  develop,  by  books,  society  and  home,  his 
immortal  mind.  Let  not  the  buyer  say,  "It  is  naught;  it 
is  naught,"  and  then  go  straightway  and  boast  what  he  hath 
done;  nor  the  seller  expose  only  the  best  side  of  his  wares. 
Let  there  be  entire  truthfulness  in  all  the  intercourse  be- 
tween man  said  man,  in  looks,  and  words,  and  acts;  and  all 
white  lies  with  all  black  lies  be  no  more  known. 

Let  science  push  her  discoveries  to  the  utmost  into  all 
the  realms  of  nature,  for  "the  relief  of  man's  estate" — no 
more  disdaining  the  useful  as  beneath  its  notice;  and  Watts 


BISHOP  FALLOWS'  REPLY.  31 

with  the  steam-engine,  and  Davy  with  the  safety-lamp,  and 
Stephenson  spanning  the  Menai  straits,  and  Hoe  with  the 
printing-press,  and  Morse  with  the  telegraph,  and  Tyndall 
with  the  smoke-respirator,  be  followed  by  other  and  greater 
benefactors  of  mankind.  Let  art  no  more  be  prostituted 
to  the  basest  of  purposes,  and  the  artist  be  no  more  disobe- 
dient to  the  heavenly  visions  of  purity  and  grace;  let 
genius  consecrate  its  highest  gifts  to  the  weal  and  not  to 
the  woe  of  mankind,  and  the  works 

That  hold  with  sweet  but  cursed  art 
Their  incantations  o'er  the  heart, 
Till  every  pulse  of  pure  desire 
Throbs  with  the  glow  of  passion's  fire, 

no  more  proceed  from  the  pen. 

Let  the  hand  of  government  be  lighter  than  eider-down 
upon  the  head  of  the  obedient  subject,  and  yet  stronger 
than  a  thunderbolt  to  avenge  his  wrongs.  Then  you  have 
only  the  flower  and  the  blessed  golden  fruit  of  those  two 
immortal  principles  of  Christianity:  "Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self." 


think  of  the  Bible  as  a  structure  solid  and  eternal." 
— Dr.  Burtol. 

"  I  KNOW  not  how  the  printers  have  pointed  this  passage, 
for  I  keep  no  Bible." — Thomas  Paine  Criticising  the 
Scriptures. 

"  To  SEE  God's  own  law  universally  acknowledged  as  it 
stands  in  the  holy  written  book;  to  see  this — or  the  true 
unwearied  aim  and  struggle  toward  this — is  a  thing  worth 
living  and  dying  for." — Thomas  Carlyle. 


32 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


"  I  HAVE  but  one  book  (the  Bible,)  but  that  is  the  best." 
—  TFra.  Collins1  Reply  to  Dr.  Johnson. 

"  THE  Bible  containes  a  complete  series  of  facts,  and  of 
historical  men  to  explain  time  and  eternity,  such  as  no 
other  religion  has  to  offer.  Everything  in  it  is  grand  and 
worthy  of  God.  The  Gospel  is  more  than  a  book;  it  is  a 
living  thing,  active,  powerful,  overcoming  every  obstacle 
in  its  way." — Napoleon  Bonaparte. 

"To  the  Bible  men  will  return  because  they  cannot  do 
without  it.  Because  happiness  is  our  being's  end  and  aim, 
and  happiness  belongs  to  righteousness,  and  righteousness 
is  revealed  in  the  Bible.  For  this  simple  reason  men  will 
return  to  the  Bible,  just  as  a  man  who  tried  to  give  up 
food,  thinking  that  it  was  a  vain  thing  and  that  he  could 
do  without  it,  would  return  to  food,  or  a  man  who  tried  to 
give  up  sleep,  thinking  it  was  a  vain  thing  and  he  could 
do  without  it,  would  return  to  sleep." — Matthew  Arnold. 


PROF.  WILGOX'S  REPLY. 


PROF.    WILCOX'S    REPLY, 


The  Professor's  Interview   with  Paine's   Physician,  Dr.  Manly — 
Remorseful  Death  of  the  Great  Infidel. 

Undoubtedly,  Mr.  Paine  was  misrepresented  by  his 
opponents.  Unquestionably,  he  has  been  maligned. 
That  he  was  enthusiastic,  unselfish  and  immensely  service- 
able in  the  defense  of  the  American  colonies,  it  would  be 
ungenerous  and  unfair  to  deny.  That  his  pen  was  a  power 
in  the  struggle  for  independence  is  matter  of  record.  And 
his  admirers  will  nave  it  that  only  an  "  orthodox  "  Chris- 
tian has  any  grievance  against  him  as  a  counter-balance  to 
to  these  services.  Paine  the  patriot,  they  would  have  us 
acknowledge,  was  blameless,  whatever  may  be  said  of 
Paine  the  religionist. 

There  is  no  greater  mistake.  There  are  men  by  the 
million  in  these  states  who  are  not  "  orthodox  "  or  devout 
or  Christian  in  profession  or  in  life,  who  see  clearly  and 
say  freely  that  Christianity  is  a  power  that  the  nation 
never  could  have  spared.  As  patriotic  citizens  they  defend 
it.  And  suppose  that  Paine  had  succeeded  in  his  fierce 
crusade  against  American  Christianity?  Suppose  he  had 
banished  the  Bible  from  every  fireside,  silenced  every 
church  bell,  soured  every  Christian  in  the  land  into  a 
sneering  unbeliever  like  himself?  Suppose  he  had  wiped 
out  with  a  stroke  of  his  pen,  as  he  deliberately  aimed  to 
do,  all  that  Christianity  has  ever  been  worth  to  the  intelli- 
gence, the  refinement,  the  morality,  the  beneficence,  of  this 
country — all  the  institutions  it  has  founded — every  college, 
seminary,  hospital,  asylum,  mission-school — what  would 


34  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL, 

have  been  the  effect  on  the  republic?  What  would  have 
been  the  outcome  of  Paine's  life  and  influence,  as  'a  whole? 
for  his  country?  What  relief  would  his  patriotic  pamph- 
lets have  offered  to  a  calamity  like  this?  They  would 
have  been  the  light  of  a  glow-worm  in  a  night  of  despair. 
Better,  a  thousand-fold,  to  have  left  us  under  the  shelter 
of  Christian  England,  with  all  the  tyranny  of  her  govern- 
ment. Better  leave  the  Ship  of  State  on  the  stocks  than 
to  launch  her,  without  helm  or  compass,  to  a  sure  wreck 
and  ruin. 

Whether  Mr.  Paine  ever  came  to  recognize  the  work  he 
had  attempted  to  do,  is  an  open  question.  That  he  ever 
forsook  his  anti-Christian  attitude  there  is  no  sufficient 
proof.  But  that  he  grew  uneasy  as  he  approached  his  end, 
that  he  suffered  from  such  alarms  as  are  commonly  ex- 
plained by  remorse,  is  as  certain  as  any  fact  that  rests  on 
evidence. 

On  the  llth  of  June,  1849,  the  writer  enjoyed  an  inter- 
view with  Dr.  Manly,  of  New  York,  the  physician  of  Mr. 
Paine  during  his  last  illness,  in  1810.  Dr.  M.,  who  must 
have  passed  his  threescore  years  and  ten,  was  highly  re- 
spected in  his  profession  and  a  gentleman  of  evident 
.candor  and  simplicity  of  character.  He  defended  his 
former  patient  from  several  discreditable  rumors,  as,  for 
instance,  that  he  inveigled  aw.iy  the  wife  of  his  friend 
Bonneville. 

There  had  been  published,  over  Dr.  Manly's  name,  the 
following  account  of  Paine's  last  hours: 

"During  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  though  his  conversation  was 
equivocal,  his  conduct  wns  singular.  He  would  not  be  left  alone,  night 
or  day.  He  not  only  required  to  have  some  person  with  him,  but  he 
must  see  that  he  or  she  was  there,  and  would  not  allow  his  curtain  to  be 
closed  at  any  time.  And  if,  as  it  would  sometimes  unavoidedly  happen, 
he  was  left  alone,  he  would  scream  and  halloo  until  sonic  person  came 


PROF.  WILCOXS  REPLY.  85 

to  him.  When  relief  from  pain  would  admit,  he  seemed  thoughtful  and 
contemplative,  his  eyes  being  generally  closed,  and  his  hands  folded 
upon  his  breast,  although  he  never  slept  without  the  assistance  of  an 
anodyne.  There  was  something  remarkable  in  his  conduct  about  this 
period  (which  comprises  about  two  weeks  immediately  preceding  his 
death)  particularly  when  we  reflect  that  Thomas  Paine  was  author  of 
the  'Age  of  Reason.'  He  would  call  out  during  his  paroxysms  of  dis- 
tress without  intermission,  'O  Lord,  help  me!  God,  help  me!  Jesus 
Christ,  help  me,  Lord  help  me,'  etc.,  repeating  the  same  expression  with- 
out any  variation,  in  a  tone  of  voice  that  would  alarm  the  house.  It  was 
this  conduct  which  led  me  to  think  that  he  had  abandoned  his  former 
opinions,  and  I  was  more  inclined  to  that  belief,  when  I  understood 
from  his  nurse,  who  is  a  very  serious,  and,  I  believe,  pious  woman,  that 
lie  would  occasionally  inquire  when  he  saw  her  engaged  with  a  book, 
what  she  was  reading;  and  being  answered,  and  asked,  at  the  same  time, 
whether  she  would  read  aloud,  he  assented  and  would  appear  to  give 
particular  attention.  The  book  she  usually  read  was  Hobart's  '  Com- 
panion for  the  Altar.' 

"  I  took  occasion,  during  the  night  of  the  5th  and  6th  of  June,  to  test 
the  strength  of  his  opinions  respecting  Revelation.  I  purposely  made 
him  a  very  late  visit.  It  was  af  a  time  that  seemed  to  sort  exactly  with 
my  errand.  It  was  midnight.  He  was  in  great  distress,  constantly  ex- 
claiming in  the  words  above  mentioned;  when,  after  a  considerable 
preface,  I  addressed  him  in  the  following  manner,  the  nurse  being 
present:  "  Mr.  Paine,  your  opinions,  by  a  large  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity, have  been  treated  with  deference;  you  have  never  been  in  the 
habit  of  mixing  in  your  conversation  words  of  course ;  you  have  never 
indulged  in  the  practice  of  profane  swearing.  You  must  be  sensible 
that  we  are  acquainted  with  your  religious  opinions  as  they  are  given  to 
the  world.  "What  must  we  think  of  your  present  conduct?  Why  do 
you  call  upon  Jesus  Christ  to  help  you  ?  Do  you  believe  that  He  can 
help  you?  Do  you  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ?  Come, 
now,  answer  me  honestly.  I  want  an  answer  from  the  lips  of  a  dying 
man,  for  I  verily  believe  that  you  will  not  live  twenty-four  hours.'  I 
waited  some  time  at  the  end  of  every  question ;  he  did  not  answer,  but 
ceased  to  exclaim  in  the  above  manner.  Again  I  addressed  him, '  Mr. 
Paine,  you  have  not  answered  my  questions ;  will  you  answer  them  ? 
Allow  me  to  ask  again,  Do  you  believe,  or  let  me  qualify  the  question, 
do  you  wish  to  believe,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  ?  After  a 
pause  of  some  minutes,  he  answered,  '  I  have  no  wish  to  believe  on  that 
subject.'  I  then  left  him,  and  know  not  whether  he  afterward  spoke  to 


36  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

any  person  on  any  subject,  though  he  lived,  as  I  before  observed,  to  the 
morning  of  the  8th.  Such  conduct,  under  usual  circumstances,  I  con- 
eider  absolutely  unaccountable;  though  with  diffidence  I  would  remark, 
not  so  much  so  in  the  present  instance.  For  though  the  first  necessary 
and  general  result  of  conviction  be  a  sincere  wish  to  alone  for  evil 
committed,  yet  it  may  be  a  question  worthy  of  able  consideration, 
whether  excessive  pride  of  opinion,  consummate  vanity  and  inordinate 
self-love  might  not  prevent  or  retard  that  otherwise  natural  conse- 
quence?" 

The  object  of  the  present  writer  in  seeking  an  interview 
witli  Dr.  Manly  was  to  obtain  from  his  own  lips  a  con- 
firmation or  denial  of  these  statements.  Dr.  M. 
acknowledged  and  re-affirmed  them  in  every  particular. 
He  added  that  the  outcries  were  so  violent  as  to  be  dis- 
tinctly heard  by  the  neighbors  in  a  house  standing 
diagonally  opposite,  and  at  a  considerable  distance  from 
Mr.  Paine's  residence.  And  they  were  evidently  cries 
from  no  mere  physical  pain.  If  Col.  Ingersoll  were  in 
pain  to-day,  would  he  call  upon  Jesus  Christ  for  relief  ? 
Thomas  Paine  was  not  a  man  of  so  barren  thought  or 
meager  speech  that  he  could  find  no  other  ejaculation.  He 
may  not  have  clearly  seen  the  wickedness  and  folly  of  the 
"Age  of  Heason."  But  a  candid  reader  will  hardly  doubt 
that  he  inwardly  trembled  with  some  vague  fear  of  coming 
retribution  as  he  looked  out  into  the  shadows. 


"THERE  is  but  one  book;  bring  me  the  Bible." — Sir 
Walter  Scott. 

"  THAT  book  "  (pointing  to  the  Bible.)  "  is  the  rock  upon 
which  our  republic  rests." — Andrew  Jackson. 

"  YOUNG  man,  attend  to  the  voice  of  one  who  has  pos- 
sessed a  certain  degree  of  fame,  and  who  will  shortly  appear 
before  his  Maker.  Read  the  Bible  every  day  of  your  life." 
— Dr.  Samuel  Johnson. 


MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL.  37 

"  THE  farther  the  ages  advance  in  cultivation,  the  more 
can  the  Bible  be  used,  partly  as  the  foundation,  partly  as 
the  means  of  education,  not,  of  course,  by  superficial,  but 
by  really  wise  men." — Goethe. 

"  PERUSE  the  books  ot  philosophers  with  all  their  pomp 
of  diction:  how  meagre,  how  contemptible,  are  they  when 
compared  with  the  Scriptures.  The  majesty  of  the  Scrip- 
ture strikes  me  with  admiration." — Rousseau. 

"  BUT  it  is  a  much  more  serious  ground  of  offense  against 
Yoltaire  that  he  intermeddled  in  religion  without  being 
himself  in  any  measure  religious;  that,  in  a  word,  he  ar- 
dently, and  with  long-continued  effort,  warred  against 
Christianity,  without  understanding,  beyond  the  mere  super- 
ficies, what  Christianity  was." — Carlyle's  Criticism,  of 
Voltaire. 

"  THE  Bible  is  a  fountain  whose  waters  feed  intellect, 
heart,  life,  promoting  the  highest  worship  as  well  as  the 
largest  humanity.  *  *  *  Kingdoms  fall,  institutions 
perish,  civilizations  change,  human  doctrines  disappear; 
but  the  imperishable  truths  which  pervade  and  sanctify  the 
Bible  shall  bear  it  up  above  the  flood  of  change  and  the 
deluge  of  years.  It  will  forever  remain." — James  Free- 
man Clarke. 

"  FOE  a  wonder,  gentlemen,  for  a  wonder,  I  know  nobody, 
either  in  France  or  anywhere  else,  who  could  write  and 
speak  with  more  art  and  talent.  I  defy  you  all — as  many 
as  are  here — to  prepare  a  tale  so  simple,  and  at  the  same 
time  so  sublime  and  so  touching  as  the  tale  of  the  passion 
and  death  of  Jesus  Christ;  which  produces  the  same 
effect,  which  makes  a  sensation  so  strong  and  as  generally 
felt,  and  whose  influence  will  be  the  same,  after  so  many 
centuries." — Diderot 


38  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

"  I  HAVE  carefully  and  regularly  perused  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures, and  am  of  opinion  that  the  volume,  independently 
of  .its  divine  origin,  contains  more  sublimity,  purer  mor- 
ality, more  important  history,  and  finer  strains,  both  of 
poetry  and  eloquence,  than  could  be  collected  within  the 
same  compass  from  all  other  books  that  were  ever  composed 
in  any  age  or  in  any  idiom." — Sir  William  Jones. 

"Tflis  book  is  the  mirror  of  the  Divinity,  the  rightful 
regent  of  the  world.  Other  books,  after  shining  their  season, 
may  perish  in  flames  fiercer  than  those  which  consumed  the 
Alexandrian  library;  this,  in  essence,  must  remain  pure  as 
gold  and  unconsumable  as  asbestos,  amid  the  flames  of  gen- 
eral conflagration.  Other  books  may  be  forgotten  in  the 
universe  where  suns  go  down  and  disappear  like  bubbles  in 
the  stream;  this  book,  transferred  to  a  higher  clime,  shall 
shine  as  the  brighcness  of  that  eternal  firmament,  and  as 
those  higher  stars  which  are  forever  and  forever." — 
George  Gil/Ulan. 


JAMES  M AC  LAUGH  LI N^  8  REPLY.  30 


JAMES  MACLATJGHLXN'S  REPLY. 


The  Scotchman  Looks  the  Lawyer  Square  in  the  Face — How  They 

Manage  Witnesses — Ingersoll  and  His  Last  Client, 

Thomas  Paine. 

The  aim  of  a  lawyer  is  to  do  the  best  he  can  for  his  client. 
Some  lawyers  are  not  very  scrupulous  as  to  the  means  and 
methods  by  which  they  can  rescue  a  client  from  the  due 
deserts  of  his  crime.  A  dangerous  witness  they  will  put 
out  of  the  way  if  they  can.  If  they  can't,  then  they  will 
blacken  his  character  in  order  to  impare  his  testimony. 
They  will  puzzle  him  with  an  array  of  questions  to  elicit 
discrepant  statements  and  to  break  down  his  evidence. 
They  will  suborn  liars  to  prove  an  alibi.  They  will  use 
every  device  and  trick  and  scheme  which  legal  chicane  can 
invent  to  invest  their  client,  though  the  most  guilty  of  the 
guilty,  with  a  robe  of  innocence  as  unsullied  as  that  of  an 
angel.  If  guilt  is  too  apparent  to  be  denied,  then  emotional 
insanity  is  adroitly  coined,  or  some  uncontrolable  mania  is 
put  in,  as  a  plea,  to  either  free  the  criminal  from  responsi- 
bility or  to  mitigate  his  crime.  Their  oblique  contrivances 
to  dishonor  truth  and  defeat  justice  are  not  the  inventions 
of  to-day.  They  were  current  in  the  days  of  Robert  Barns. 
The  plowman  poet,  in  his  own  satirical  way,  describes  the 
lawyers  in  the  other  world  as  suffering  in  that  little  mem- 
ber, the  tongue,  by  which  they  have  sinned  so  much  in  this. 

Colonel  Bob  Ingersoll  is  a  lawyer.  His  last  client  is 
Tom  Paine,  and,  if  we  believe  the  advocate,  his  client 
deserves  the  glory  of  being  the  founder  of  this  great  repub- 
lic, and  the  alone  apostle  of  modern  liberty! 


40  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

The  Colonel  states  at  the  outset  as  follows:  "  About  this 
man,  I  intend  to  tell  just  as  near  the  truth  as  I  can."  Now, 
when  speaking  about  his  client,  \\ownear  the  truth  a  law- 
yer will  go  is  an  intricate  question.  It  would  not  be  good 
policy  for  him  to  go  too  near  the  truth  in  every  case;  it 
might  materially  change  the  cause  and  character  of  the 
client. 

Getting  at  the  Facts — Interesting  Incidents  in  Paine's  Life. 

That  Paine  was  of  humble  parentage  is  true,  but  in  this 
I  can  not  see  anything  peculiarly  meritorious.  Many  who 
were  born  in  poverty  and  cradled  in  hardships  became  the 
benefactors  of  humanity,  the  patrons  of  industry,  and  the 
champions  of  liberty.  That  the  young  Quaker,  Paine,  had 
a  keen,  vigorous  intellect,  and  that  he  received  a  good  ele- 
mentary education,  is  also  true.  That  he  was  a  staymaker 
with  his  father,  then  a  grocer,  and  then  an  exciseman,  is 
as  near  the  truth  as  we  can  come.  That  he  lost^his  place 
on  the  excise  because  he  started  in  the  tobacco  business  is 
about  true.  Being  out  of  work,  an  acquaintance  gave  him 

a  letter  of  introduction  to  Franklin,  then  in  London,  who 

• 

advised  him  to  emigrate  to  America.  All  this  is  as  near 
the  truth  as  we  can  get.  Paine  came  to  Ajnerica,  as  many 
before  him  did,  and  many  since  have  done,  simply  to  find 
a  wider  field  for  his  ambition.  This  was  in  1774,  when  he 
was  in  his  thirty-eighth  year.  Paine  became  editor  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Magazine. 

In  January,  1776,  at  the  suggestion  of  Franklin,  Paine 
wrote  the  pamphlet  of  "  Common  Sense."  All  true.  And 
if  his  "Common  Sense"  was,  as  the  Colonel  says,  "the 
•first  argument  for  separation,  the  first  assault  on  the 
British  form  of  government,  the  first  blow  for  a  republic, 
and  aroused  our  fathers  like  a  trumpet  blast,"  then  be  it 


JAMES  MACLAUOIILIWS  REPLY.  41 

remembered  that  Paiije  drew  his  introductory  arguments 
and  illustrations,  not  from  the  arsenal  of  infidelity,  but 
from  the  arsenal  of  this  old  book,  the  Bible,  which  Colonel 
Ingersoll  vituperously  slanders.  Paine  was  not  an  avowed 
infidel  at  this  time,  but  a  Quaker. 

It  was  the  Quaker  Paine,  not  the  infidel  Paine,  that 
worked  for  American  independence,  and  we  challenge  the 
Colonel  to  show  us  anything  done  by  Paine  in  the  interests 
of  national  liberty  after  he  avowed  his  religious  or  irrelig- 
ious views  in  his  "Age  of  Reason." 

But  was  Paine's  "  Common  Sense  "  the  first  peal  of  the 
tocsin  of  separation  and  independence?  ]STo.  Ten  years 
before  this,  when  both  Franklin  and  Paine  were  in  Eng- 
land, and  strangers  to  each  other,  and  immediately  after 
the  news  of  the  passage  of  the  stamp  act  had  reached 
America,  a  young  man,  by  name,  Patrick  Henry,  amid  his 
assembled  colonists  in  Virginia,  arose  and  said:  "Cassar 
had  his  Brutus,  Charles  I.  his  Cromwell,  and  George  III." 
— Here  he  was  interrupted  by  the  cry,  "  Treason."  Paus- 
ing, he  added — "may  profit  by  their  example."  This  was 
the  key-note  of  resistance  and  independence.  And  in 
spite  of  the  timid,  who  quaked  at  the  utterance,  the  words 
of  Patrick  Henry  flowed  outward  and  onward,  swelling 
many  a  brave  heart  with  the  dawning  hope  of  liberty. 

Bancroft  vs.  Ingersoll — Additional  Facts! 

And  there  is  another  fact  that  sadly  conflicts  with  the 
Colonel's  fulsome  rhetoric.  We  give  it  from  the  page  and 
in  the  words  of  Bancroft,  where  the  illustrious  historian 
describes  the  early  settlers  who  formed  the  Young  Ameri- 
can colonies,  and  mentions  Presbyterians  who  had  come 
from  Ireland  and  planted  themselves  in  the  upland  region 
of  North  Carolina.  And  in  connection  with  this  he  adds: 


42  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

i 

*(  We  shall  find  that  the  first  voice  publicly  raised  in 
America  to  dissolve  all  connection  with  Great  Britiari 
came,  not  from  the  Puritans  of  New  England,  the  Dutch 
of  New  York,  or  the  planters  of  Virginia,  but  from 
Scotch-Irish  Presbyterians"  Tell  it  not  in  Gath.  The 
Colonel  will  call  all  history  a  lie  and  all  men  liars,  rather 
than  have  his  own  pet  client  outstripped  in  the  manly  race 
by  detestable  Christians.  He  would  gladly  pay,  I  fancy, 
$10  more  a  volume  for  Bancroft  if  that  passage  had  not 
been  written. 

Now,  we  have  no  wish  to  dwarf  the  services  rendered  by 
Paine  to  the  cause  of  American  independence.  His 
"  Common  Sense  "  was  a  heavy  gun  in  the  field,  and  the 
writer  was  rewarded  for  it  by  a  vote  of  £500  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  Pennsylvania.  I  need  not  say  that  his  patriotism 
was  so  intensely  strong  that  he  actually  accepted  the  sum. 
Nor  was  this  all  his  reward.  He  was  appointed  clerk  to 
the  Committee  for  Foreign  Affairs,  an  office  which  he  was 
afterward  obliged  to  resign  in  17T9,  on  account  of  some 
breach  of  trust.  It  was  while  in  this  office  that  he  wrote 
his  stirring  appeals  entitled  "The  Crisis,"  from  which  we 
would  not  detract  an  iota. 

In  1780  he  obtained  the  office  of  Clerk  to  the  Assembly 
of  Pennsylvania.  His  friends  moved  to  have  him 
appointed  historiographer  to  the  United  States,  but  they 
failed.  Congress,  in  1785,  however,  voted  him  $3,000, 
which  the  distinguished  patriot  had  the  generosity  to 
accept  from  the  young  republic  just  starting  in  business. 
The  State  of  New  York  also  gave  him  500  acres  of  land. 
Tom  Paine  was  well  rewarded  for  all  his  valuable  services 
in  the  cause  of  liberty;  and  none  but  a  lawyer's  eye  can 
discover  the  sacrifices,  the  self-denials  which  made  the  poor 
Quaker  emigrant  rich  at  a  time  Avhile  thousands  of  Irish 


JAMES  MAC  LAUGH  LIN'S  REPLY.  48 

colonists  had  become  poor  by  laying  their  possessions  at 
the  feet  of  independence. 

If  Paiue's  object  was  to  benefit  mankind,  as  his  learned 
counsel  says,  then  it  would  appear  that,  while  engaged  in 
this  really  patriotic  career,  he  was  benefiting  himself. 

After  a  thirteen  years'  residence  in  this  country  Paine 
sailed  to  France  (1787).  From  France  he  crossed  to  Eng- 
land. "  His  rights  of  Man,"  in  reply  to  Burke  was 
written  in  England.  It  was  pronounced  seditious,  and  the 
author  was  threatened  with  prosecution.  Paine's  well- 
known  republican  sentiments  had  made  him  popular  in 
France.  He  was  elected  to  represent  the  Department  of 
Calias  in  the  National  Convention,  and,  escaping  from 
England,  he  took  his  seat  in  that  radical  assembly  in  1792. 

The  Reign  of  Terror — The  Great  Ingersoll  Epoch — Voting 
for  the  King's  Execution. 

France  was  now  a  political  volcano.  The  church  to 
which  Colonel  Ingersoll  is  proud  to  belong,  and  not  the 
infamous  Kirk  of  Scotland,  was  in  the  ascendency,  and,  oh, 
how  humane  and  merciful  the  scepter!  There  was  no 
John  Adams  to  invoke  the  blessing  of  heaven  on  the  new 
Republic  of  France.  Neither  a  God  to  love  nor  a  devil  to 
fear,  was  the  prevailing  creed.  Reason  ruled — a  rod  of 
iron?  Worse  still.  Reason's  reign  was  a  reign  of  terror. 
The  soldiers  of  this  sweet  goddess  of  Colonel  Ingersoll  had 
the  power.  They  were  sovereigns,  and  their  acts  declared 
that  their  mistress  was  the  "  twin  sister  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition."  They  became  the  regicide  of  a  monarch 
more  virtuous  than  his  executioners,  and  like  ferocious 
tigers,  they  struck  their  claws  into  thousands  of  victims 
and  devoured  them  without  mercy.  It  is  but  the  trick  of 


44  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

a  lawyer  to  offset  this  butchery  by  a  reference  to  the  mas- 
sacre of  St.  Bartholomew  in  1572. 

We  want  neither  the  terror  of  1793  nor  the  massacre  of 
1572;  and  neither  was  inspired  by  the  lessons  of  our 
Saviour.  They  were  both  monsters  of  the  same  family, 
each  begotten  by  the  enemy,  not  the  friend  of  the  Bible. 
We  do  not  implicate  Paine  in  these  atrocities  which  made 
even  stout  hearts  shudder  in  France.  We  give  him  credit 
for  voting  against  the  execution  of  Louis.  But  the  learned 
counsel  has  made  out  that  his  client  stood  almost  alone  in 
his  resistance  to  the  king's  death.  History  must  be  a  lie,, 
that  Tom  Paine  may  enjoy  the  solitary  grandeur  of  the 
humane  in  the  midst  of  the  cruel  in  that  convention.  In 
that  assembly  there  were  721  suffrages;  of  these,  366 — 
only  a  bare  majority — voted  for  the  king's  execution;  so- 
that  Tom  Paine  was  one  of  355  to  share  in  the  courage  or 
humanity  of  that  occasion.  It  was  not,  after  all,  a  work 
of  devotion  such  as  has  no  parallel  in  the  life  of  any 
theologian.  The  Colonel's  eloquence  on  this  point  reminds 
us  of  the  old  story  of  the  mountain  being  in  labor  and 
bringing  forth  a  mouse.  And  this  is  about  the  briefest 
and  best  critique  on  the  entire  lecture  about  Tom  Paine. 

That  Tom  Paine  became  popular  with  the 
leaders  of  the  French  revolution  because  he  was  not 
wicked  enough,  is  true,  and  he  was  thrown  into  prison; 
but  this  happened  not  at  once,  but  fully  a  year  after  the 
execution  of  the  king.  He  remained  in  prison  nearly  two* 
years.  After  his  release  he  published  the  second  part  of 
his  "Age  of  Reason."  In  1802  he  left  France  and 
reached  Baltimore.  We  can  not  find  any  trace  after  this 
in  his  life  of  any  public  or  political  activities  deserving- 
commendation.  His  influence  and  reputation  certainly- 
declined  after  he  avowed  his  religious  sentiment  in  the 
"  Age  of  Reason." 


JAMES  MAC  LAUGH  LIN'S  REPLY.  45 


How  Ingersoll  Wastes  His  Powder — Some  of  His  Blunders — 
Paine's  Moral  Decline. 

The  Colonel  very  adroitly  tries  to  rebut  the  allegation 
that  Paine  was  a  drunkard.  He  refers  to  his  services  ren- 
dered to  American  independence,  and  the  rewards  he  re- 
ceived, and  asks  could  all  this  have  happened  had  Paine 
teen  a  drunkard.  But  the  Colonel  has  only  wasted  powder 
in  blazing  away  so  furiously  as  he  has  done  on  this  point. 
The  allegation  that  Paine  fell  into  habits  of  dissipation 
extends  only  to  the  last  few  years  of  his  life,  and  the 
learned  counsel's  effort  to  disprove  this  is  exceedingly 
lame.  We  are  not  disposed  either  to  exaggerate  Paine's 
faults  or  to  detract  from  liis  merits,  but,  coming  as  near 
as  we  can,  we  must  gently  hint  that  his  last  years  were 
snot  the  most  purely  spent  nor  most  happy  of  his  life. 

Paine  was  married  twice.  His  first  wife  died  about  a 
year  after  their  marriage.  After  living  about  three  and  a 
half  years  with  his  second  wife  they  separated,  not  by  di- 
vorce, but  by  mutual  consent.  He  brought  the  wife  of  a 
French  bookseller  and  her  two  sons  to  America  and  what- 
ever were  his  relations  to  that  woman,  pure  or  impure, 
deponent  saith  not,  but  she,  her  husband,  and  children,  not 
the  United  States  nor  her  war-worn  veterans,  became  his 
chief  legatees. 

If  Colonel  Ingersoll  fancies  that  the  services  of  Tom 
Paine  in  the  cause  of  human  rights  is  the  natural  outflow 
of  infidelity,  he  blunders  egregiously. 

In  the  first  place,  Tom  Paine's  infidelity  was  of  a  milder 
type  than  that  of  his  advocate.  Tom  Paine  was  a  respect- 
able deist,  and  he  would  have  scorned  to  drop  from  his  pen 
the  ribald  words  which  his  admirers  would  have  employed 
to  caricature  the  amiable  founder  of  our  Christianity. 


46  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

In  the  second  place,  Colonel  Ingersoll  can  not  deny  that 
Tom  Paine  was  not  the  avowed  infidel,  but  the  Quaker, 
when  he  championed  the  cause  of  American  independence 
against  tyranny  and  oppression,  and  let  some  one  show  us 
what  sacrifices  Tom  Paine  laid  upon  the  altar  of  humanity 
or  liberty  after  he  avowed  his  sentiments  in  the  "  Age  of 
Reason."  That  infidels  have  rendered  valuable  services  to 
their  country  and  to  the  world,  may  be  true,  but  to  con- 
clude from  this  that  Christianity  is  tyranny  outstrips- 
Aristotle. 

Charity  vs.  Slander. 

But  our  objection  to  the  Colonel's  lecture  and  logic  arises 
not  so  much  from  what  he  has  said  about  Paine  as  from 
what  he  has  said  about  others.  The  Colonel  would  have 
every  American  to  cover  all  the  faults  of  his  client  with 
"  the  divine  mantle  of  charity,"  and  not  "breathe  one  word 
against  his  name."  But,  alas,  his  mantle  of  charity  is  so 
•beautifully  small  that  it  can  cover  but  the  faults  of  his 
own  client.  The  Colonel  mentions  slander  as  the  last 
weapon  left  in  the  arsenal  of  Jehovah.  I  am  surprised 
that  he  went  to  this  arsenal  to  borrow  his  weapon  from 
Jehovah,  as  there  seems  to  be  no  neighborly  feeling  be- 
tween them.  Pejhaps  he  scorned  to  be  under  any  compli- 
ment in  that  quarter,  and  may  have  found  the  weapon 
somewhere  else.  Having  found  it,  ground  it,  and  polished 
it  with  a  keen  Damascus  edge,  armed  he  comes  to  Chicago 
and  slashes  away  like  a  valiant  knight  of  ancient  times. 
Slander!  None  so  expert  in  the  use  of  this  weapon  as  the 
courageous  Colonel.  No  quarter  for  the  living  or  the 
dead,  the  innocent  or  the  guilty.  Like  Herod's  sword  in 
Bethlehem,  he  cuts,  carves,  and  spares  none,  but  slays  all 
that  he  may  slay  the  child  Jesus. 


JAMES  MAO  LAUGH  LIN' 8  HE  PLY.  47 

The  Scotchman  Draws  His  Bible  on  the  Colonel ! — A  Heavy  Shot, 
Which  Hits  Between  the  Eyes. 

The  Scriptures,  too,  are  assailed  by  the  gallant  Coionel, 
in  these  words:  "He  (Paine)  knew  that  every  abuse  had 
been  embalmed  in  Scripture,  that  every  outrage  was  in 
partnership  with  some  holy  text."  The  Scriptures,  then, 
must  be  a  wonderful  license  and  guide  to  crime.  Each 
criminal  in  the  land  should  love  the  Bible,  and  carry  a  copy 
of  the  old  book  under  his  arm.  But  do  they?  Let  us  seey 
Colonel  Ingersoll  has  a  church  with  a  large  membership. 
To  what  church,  religion,  or  superstition  do  our  notorious 
criminals  belong?  I  am  willing  to  visit,  in  company  with 
him,  the  penitentiary,  the  jail.  I  shall  take  the  Bible,  he 
can  take  his  lecture  on  Tom  Paine;  and  at  the  iron  door 
inside  of  which  sit  accused  crime  and  guilt  I  shall  present 
the  Bible,  and  he  can  present  his  lecture.  AYhich  will  be 
accepted  and  read  with  "infinite  gusto" — my  Bible,  "which 
embalms  every  crime,"  "in  which  outrage  finds  partnership 
in  some  holy  text,"  or  his  lecture,  in  which  God,  Bible,  and 
religion  have  no  quarter? 

A  fellow  feeling  makes  us  wondrous  kind.  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  The  Bible,  this  patron  of 
crime,  has  found  its  way  into  the  Sandwich  Islands.  The 
Colonel  might  visit  that  little  dusky  kingdom  in  safety  to- 
day. Had  he  done  so  with  Captain  Cook,  when  there  was 
no  Bible  there,  the  rotund  and  rosy  champion  of  infidelity 
would  have  been  a  splendid  banquet  for  the  natives.  What 
is  Madagascar  to-day  under  the  influence  of  the  Bible? 
Some  years  ago  the  Colonel  might  have  made  his  last  will 
and  testament  before  he  touched  its  shores;  to-day  he  could 
find  there  a  safe  retreat  in  which  to  rest  his  travel-worn 
frame.  In  the  far  "West,  where  Indians  roam  in  freedom, 
I  fancy  that  the  advocate  of  Tom  Paine  would  spend  the 


48  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

night  with  less  anxiety  in  the  wigwam  where  the  Bible  was 
read  and  loved  by  the  chief  than  in  the  tent  of  the  brave 
who  gloried  in  human  scalps  rather  than  in  the  cross  of 
Christ. 

We  have  no  more  respect  for  superstition  than  Colonel 
Ingersoll  has ;  we  condemn  as  much  as  he  can  all  tyrannv, 
civil  and  clerical.  We  confess  that  in  the  name  of  religion 
cruelties  have  been  committed.  Blood  has  been  shed, 
which  may  well  shock  every  chord  of  the  human  heart,  and 
arouse  a  shuddering  storm  of  indignation.  But  the  coun- 
terfeit and'the  false  implies  the  genuine  and  the  true;  and 
in  destroying  the  one  it  would  be  only  foolish  and  ruinous 
to  destroy  the  other. 

When  Christianity  started  at  first  on  her  benevolent 
inarch,  she  was  the  kind,  innocent  maiden  going  from 
liouse  to  house  to  dispense  her  boons  with  the  hand  of 
charity.  Her  enemies  could  prefer  no  charges  against  her 
tmt  that  she  worshiped  one  God,  loved  Jesus  Christ,  and 
lived  a  good,  benevolent  and  praiseworthy  life.  So  far  as 
Ohristians  have  departed  from  this,  they  have  departed 
from  the  lessons  and  examples  of  the  primitive  preachers 
of  the  Christian  faith,  and  Christianity  is  no  more  respon- 
sible for  the  corruption  and  cruelties  subsequently  intro- 
duced and  practiced  under  her  name  than  the  legislators  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  are  for  the  law  breakers  and  crimes 
that  disgrace  her  history. 

Ingersoll'a  Sophistries. 

The  Colonel  has  employed  all  the  arts  of  sophistry,  as 
well  as  slander,  to  undermine  Christianity,  and  upon  God 
and  the  Bible  he  has  poured  the  fire  of  wit,  sarcasm,  ridi- 
cule, and  everything  of  that  kind;  but  let  sober  judgment 
ait  down,  examine,  analyze,  and  weigh  the  production,  and 


JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN'8  REPL  Y.  49 

there  is  not  there  the  earnestness  and  heart,  of  a  sincere 
reformer,  but  rather  the  foolery  and  flings  and  fancies  of 
the  circus  clowti,  whose  chief  object  is  to  start  a  laugh. 
The  lecturer  at  times  becomes  a  metaphysician,  and  per- 
haps his  disciples,  like  those  of  Pythagoras  of  old,  consider 
his  ipse  dixit  a  sufficient  proof.  But  assertion  is  not 
enough  now.  He  tells  us  that  "intellectual  liberty,  as  a 
matter  of  necessity,  forever  destroys  the  idea  that  belief  is- 
either  praise  or  blameworthy,  and  is  wholly  inconsistent 
with  every  creed  in  Christendom.'1  Again.  "  No  man 
can  control  his  belief."  So  the  Colonel  teaches  that  all 
who  hold  a  Christian  creed  are  intellectual  slaves.  Now  a 
creed  is  a  belief,  and  if  no  man  can  control  his  belief,  then 
no  man  is  intellectually  free,  not  even  himself.  If,  in  the 
exercise  of  reason,  I  honestly  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
universe  is  the  marvelous  product  of  a  master  mind  and  an. 
almighty  arm,  and  if  I  write  down  my  creed — I  believe  in- 
one  God,  the  Creator — am  I  the  intellectual  slave,  and 
Colonel  Ingersoll,  who  denies  this,  the  intellectual  free- 
man ?  So  his  logic  leads. 

How  wonderfully  liberal  are  our  modern  advocates  of 
free  thought.  They  cry  charity,  when  they  themselves 
are  most  uncharitable,  and  brand  all  outside  their  own 
circle  as  servile  fools.  We  acknowledge,  with  modesty,  the 
compliment.  But,  while  Colonel  Ingersoll  may  say  that  a 
man  is  not  responsible  for  his  belief,  can  he  deny  that  error 
in  belief  may  result  in  disaster  and  death?  A  boy,  for 
instance,  finds  a  pistol,  and  in  playful  sport  points  the 
weapon  at  his  little  sister.  There  is  an  explosion,  and  the 
red  mark  on  the  brow  of  the  prostrate  child  shows  that 
death's  message  has  been  delivered.  Such  a  thing  has 
happened.  It  was  only  an  error  in  belief.  The  boy  believed 
that  the  pistol  was  not  loaded,  but  it  was;  the  belief  was 


50  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

wrong.  Engineers  believed  that  the  Tay  bridge  was  all 
right.  So  did  those  in  the  train  on  that  stormy  Sunday 
night.  But  the  sad  disaster  dissipated  the  belief,  and 
ended  in  wreck.  The  belief  was  wrong.  Pardon  us,  then, 
Colonel,  for  believing  in  God,  the  gospel,  and  a  future 
state.  If  we  are  wrong,  our  belief  and  religion  are  no  bur- 
den to  us  here,  and  can  not  hurt  us  hereafter.  If  you  are 
wrong,  your  error  will  prove  hereafter  your  greatest  pain. 

Is  It  True?— Paine  as  a  Philanthropist. 

The  Colonel  declares  that  his  client  was  "  the  first  to  lift 
liis  voice  against  human  slavery."  He  is  admirable  at 
assertion.  In  the  very  year  that  Tom  Paine  came  to 
America,  October,  1774,  the  first  American  Congress 
passed  this  resolution: 

"  We  will  neither  import,  nor  purchase  any  slaves  imported,  after  the 
first  day  of  December  next ;  after  which  time  we  will  wholly  discon- 
tinue the  slave  trade,  and  neither  be  concerned  in  it  ourselves,  nor  will 
we  hire  our  vessels  nor  sell  our  commodities  or  manufactures  to  those 
-who  are  concerned  in  it." 

Is  it  likely  that  the  emigrant  of  a  few  months'  resident 
in  this  land  was  the  father  of  that  resolution?  That  slavery 
still  remained  as  a  stain  on  the  escutcheon  of  this  republic 
js  true;  and  that  Christians  were  arrayed  against  Christians 
on  this  subject,  is  no  less  true.  But,  let  Colonel  Ingersoll 
drop  that  laugh  of  disdain.  We  will  not  only  assert,  but 
prove,  that  Christians  were  the  first  abolitionists. 

When  Christianity  lifted  her  banner,  one-half  the  popu- 
lation of  the  old  Roman  Empire  were  slaves.  But  as  that 
banner  advanced  in  age,  respect,  influence,  and  power,  it 
dropped  the  blessing  of  manumission  on  the  heart  of  the 
bondsman. 

Primitive  Christianity,  not  Tom  Paine,  was  the  first 
abolitionist.  And  is  it  true,  or  not  true,  that  Great 


JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN'S  REPLY.  51 

Britain,  professedly  Christian,  abolished  slavery  in  her 
West  Indian  Islands?  Is  it  true,  or  not  true,  that  in  doing- 
this  she  laid  on  the  altar  of  humanity  an  offering  of" 
£20,000,000?  Is  it  true,  or  not  true,  that  all  this  was  the 
result,  not  of  infidel,  but  of  Christian  voices,  such  as  those 
of  a  Clarkson,  a  Thomson,  a  Wilberforce,  a  Cowper,  whose 
pleadings  secured  this  grandest  act  in  the  drama  of  modern 
events?  How  many  dollars  did  Tom  Paine  give  or  lend  to- 
the  cause  of  manumission?  Surely,  this  philanthropist,, 
before  whose  loving  kindnesses  those  of  a  Howard  must 
pale,  devoted  his  fortune  of  $13,000,  if  he  had  it,  to  the 
grand  cause  of  oppressed  humanity,  especially  as  he  had 
no  heirs  to  inherit  it.  Alas,  we  find  no  such  disposition  of 
his  property;  it  falls  into  the  lap  of  Mme.  de  Bonncvillef 

John  Calvin. 

The  Colonel,  in  the  course  of  his  lecture,  makes  a  fling- 
at  Calvin;  but  it  was  a  happy  hit  in  the  Music  Hall.  We 
had  thought  that  the  story  of  Calvin  and  Servetus  had 
become  too  hackneyed  to  start  an  additional  laugh.  It  is 
well  that  in  Calvin's  life  his  enemies  find  but  this  one  string 
to  play  upon.  Were  it  otherwise,  the  music  would  never 
cease.  But  let  me  tell  Mr.  Ingersoll  that  if  he  loves 
republicanism,  he  should  love  John  Calvin  more  than  he 
loves  Tom  Paine.  John  Calvin  was  the  master  spirit  in  a 
republic  more  than  200  yeirs  older  than  that  of  the  United 
States — the  first  little  republic  of  modern  times.  John 
Calvin  might  have  arisen  to  the  chair  of  the  Roman  Pontiff 
and  sat  in  the  highest  seat  in  Christendom.  But  turning- 
his  back  on  honors,  emoluments,  place,  and  power,  almost 
alone,  he  goes  out  to  battle  with  the  hosts  of  superstition 
and  tyranny  for  mental  emancipation  and  human  rights. 

His  whole  life  was  one  great  offering  to  human  freedo 


52  MISTAKES  OF  INUEHSOLL* 

His  self-denials,  his  hair-breadth  escapes,  proclaim  him  the 
honest  hero,  and,  after  spending  a  life  of  toil  and  danger 
in  molding  and  guiding  and  strengthening  the  little  He- 
public  of  Geneva,  he  dies,  not  even  with  $13,000  to  leave 
to  the  children  of  another  man's  wife.  And  in  the  matter 
of  Servetus,  be  it  known  that,  while  Calvin  took  part  in 
the  trial  of  Servetus  for  blasphemy,  he  was  neither  judge 
nor  jury.  It  was  the  Senate  or  Council  of  Geneva  that 
•condemned  Servetus,  and,  although  their  sentence  was  uni- 
versally approved  in  those  days,  and  Servetus  had  been 
burned  in  effigy  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  after  he 
made  his  escape  from  prison,  still  there  was  one  voice 
raised  in  favor  of  mitigating  his  sentence,  and  that  voice 
was  the  voice  of  John  Calvin.  But,  as  every  one  who  has 
read  the  history  of  those  times  knows,  Calvin  had  his 
opponents  in  Geneva.  The  reins  of  his  moral  discipline 
were  too  tight  for  some;  they  resisted,  and  formed  the 
party  of  the  libertines.  This  party,  with  which  Colonel 
Ingersoll  would  have  naturally  stood,  was  in  the  ascendancy 
when  Servetus  was  tried  and  condemned,  and  hence  Cal- 
vin's efforts  with  the  council  to  save  Servetus  from  the 
flames  were  futile.  But  Calvin's  admirers  deplore  that  act. 
and  pronounce  it  the  relic  of  a  dark,  barbarous  age.  In 
the  last  century  one  of  the  Genevese  said:  .  ''Would  to 
God  that  we  could  extinguish  this  burning  pile  with  our 
tears."  That  is  the  sentiment  of  the  Calvinists  now,  and 
when  an  error  is  deprecated  and  deplored  surely  a  common 
•charity  should  allow  its  ashes  to  sleep. 

Colonel  Ingersoll's  attack  on  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  is  the 
most  marvelous  piece  of  his  lecture.  For  vituperation, 
misrepresentation,  and  exaggeration  it  is  unparalleled.  He 
caricatures  the  Kirk  as  "the  full  sister  of  the  Spanish  In- 
quisition. It  waged  war  upon  human  nature,  it  was  the 


JAMES  MAC  LAUGH  LIN'S  REPLY.  55 

ememy  of  happiness,  the  hater  of  joy,  and  the  despiser  of 
religious  liberty;  it  taught  parents  to  murder  their  children 
rather  than  allow  them  to  propagate  error;  if  the  mother 
held  opinions  which  the  infamous  Kirk  disapproved,  her 
children  were  taken  from  her  arms,  her  babe  from  her  very 
bosom,  and  she  was  not  allowed  to  see  them  or  write  them 
one  word."  That  is  a  sample  of  the  valiant  Colonel's  on- 
slaught on  the  Kirk.  Poor  Scotland!  She  must  have 
suffered  a  reign  of  terror.  Where  were  her  Bruces  and 
"Wallaces?  "Was  there  not  some  stalwart  Scot  to  seize  the 
battle-ax  and  hew  down,  root  and  branch,  this  pestilential 
upas  and  free  the  land  from  a  monster  tyranny  worse  than 
an  English  Edward,  or  a  George? 

Centre  Shots  by  a  Scotch  Rifleman. 

But  how  comes  it  that  the  old  Kirk  became  the  patron 
of  learning  and  established  her  parish  schools  ?  How  corner 
it  that  Scotchmen,  brought  up  under  the  shadow  of  this  old 
Kirk,  have  become  statesmen,  soldiers,  scholars,  scientistsr 
authors,  inventors,  manufacturers,  merchants,  and  even 
lawyers,  of  whom  any  nation  might  be  proud  ?  How  is  it 
that,  brought  up  under  the  shadow  of  that  infamous  Kirk, 
there  is  no  man  loves  his  native  hearth  or  has  more  patriotic 
pride  than  a*Scotchman?  How  is  it  that  on  the  calendar 
of  crime  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  the  names  of  Scotch- 
men are  fewest  in  number?  And  in  the  United  States  let 
us  visit  penitentiaries  and  jails.  If  you  find  a  Scotchman 
behind  the  bars  at  all  he  is  one  who  has  turned  away  from 
that  old  infamous  Kirk  to  enter  the  communion  of  Colonel 
Ingersoll.  I  can  prove  this  in  Chicago  to-day.  How  is  it 
that  for  independence  of  mind  and  manly  self-reliance  and 
business  talent  and  principle  and  push,  there  is  no  nation 
who  can  furnish  the  world  with  better  men  than  Auld 


54  MISTAKES  OF  1NQERSOLL. 

Scotia,  with  its  infamous  Kirk?  If  the  Kirk  is  the  twin 
sister  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  how  is  it  that  she  can 
defy  a  pang  of  torture  or  a  drop  of  blood  to  lift  against 
her  the  accusing  voice  of  persecution? 

That  a  boj  named  Thomas  Arkenhead  was  hanged  in 
Edinburgh  about  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
for  doubting  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  if  not  invented 
for  the  occasion  by  the  lecturer,  is  but  a  pious  fraud,  fabri- 
cated in  some  Jesuitical  factory.  If  the  Kirk  had  been 
given  to  such  cruelty  she  would  have  had  a  more  worthy 
victim  in  Hume,  the  historian.  If  the  Kirk  was  so  intol- 
erant, why  did  she  allow  secession  from  her  ranks  and 
other  religious  bodies  to  be  formed  and  exist  in  peace  at 
her  side?  That  her  manner  was  somewhat  stern,  her  dis- 
cipline rigid  at  times,  we  honestly  admit,  but  we  tell  Col. 
IngerBoll  that  the  old  Kirk  has  helped  to  make  Scotchman 
a  name  of  respect  the  world  over,  and  some  of  Tom  Paine's 
admirers  would  not  suffer  in  character  by  a  rigid  conform- 
ity to  her  lessons. 

Impotence  of  Infidelity. 

But  I  must  come  to  a  close.  I  do  so  by  saying  that 
neither  the  tirades  of  Col.  Ingersoll  against  Christianity 
nor  the  discoveries  of  science  can  overthrow  our  religion. 
The  fool  may  say  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God,  but  it  is 
only  in  the  fool's  heart  that  that  sentiment  is  written.  The 
geologist  may  bore  to  the  centre  of  earth;  he  can't  find  it 
written  on  the  rocks  of  bygone  generations;  the  astronomer 
may  sweep  the  spacious  firmament  with  his  telescope,  and 
after  he  has  examined  all  from  the  morning  star  to  the 
most  distant  sentinel  of  the  sky,  on  the  vast  star-spangled 
tanner  of  night,  he  can't  find  it  written  there.  The  chemist 


JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN'ti  REPLY.  55 

may  analyze  matter  and  reduce  it  to  its  primal  elements, 
but  on  any  of  its  atoms  he  can't  find  it  written  there. 

To  science,  in  her  numerous  walks  and  works  in  the 
fields  of  nature,  mind,  and  morals,  we  say  Godspeed.  Every 
achievement  she  performs,  every  discovery  she  makes,  and 
all  the  results  of  her  explorations  can  not  overthrow  the 
Bible,  but  only  serve  to  fill  in  that  wide  outline  which 
meets  the  eye  on  the  first  page.  In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Science  can  never  wipe 
out  that  grand  piece  of  information,  but  science  can  show 
us  how  many,  great,  and  marvelous  are  the  works  of  Him 
who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  and  all  things 
therein. 


"  THE  whole  hope  of  human  progress  is  suspended  on 
the  ever-growing  influence  of  the  Bible." —  Win.  H.Seward. 

"  THE  Bible  is  the  only  cement  of  nations,  and  the  only 
cement  that  can  bind  religious  hearts  together." — Chevalier 
JBunsen. 

"  BIBLE  Christianity  is  the  companion  of  liberty  in  all 
its  conflicts,  the  cradle,  of  its  infancy,  and  the  divine 
source  of  its  claims." — De  Toequeille. 

"  WE  are  persuaded  that  there  is  no  book  by  the  perusal 
of  which  the  mind  is  so  much  strengthened  and  so  much 
enlarged  as  it  is  by  the  perusal  of  the  Bible." — Dr.  Mel- 
ville. 

"  IF  we  abide  by  the  principles  taught  in  the  Bible,  our 
country  will  go  on  prospering  and  to  prosper;  but  if  we 
and  our  posterity  neglect  its  instructions  and  authority, 
no  man  can  tell  how  sudden  a  catastrophe  may  overwhelm 
us,  and  bury  all  our  glory  in  profound  obscurity." — Daniel 
Webster. 


66  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

''WE  account  the  Scriptures  of  God  to  be  the  most  sublime 
philosophy.  I  tind  more  sii re  marks  of  authenticity  in  the 
Bible  than  in  any  profane  history  whatever." — Sir  Isaac 
Newton. 

"  THERE  never  was  found  in  any  age  of  the  world  either 
religion  or  law  that  did  so  highly  exalt  the  public  good  as- 
the  Bible." — Lord  Bacon. 

"I  BELIEVE  in  God  and  adore  Him.  I  have  a  firm  be- 
lief in  the  history  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments and  in  the  regeneration  of  the  human  race  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ." — Guizot. 

"THE  Bible  gives  strength  in  conscious  weakness,  joy  in 
the  hour  of  deepest  sorrow,  and  hope  triumphant  when  the 
earth  and  all  it  contains  is  slipping  from  beneath,  and 
eternity  waits  for  our  coming." — President  Fislier. 

"  BY  the  study  of  what  other  book  could  children  be  so- 
much  humanized?  If  Bible  reading  is  not  accompanied 
by  constraint  and  solemnity,  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any 
thing  in  which  children  take  more  pleasure." — Professor 
Huxley. 

"  LET  us  cling  with  a  holy  zeal  to  the  Bible,  and  the 
pible  only,  a*  the  religion  of  Protestants.  Let  us  pro- 
claim, with  Milton,  that  neither  traditions,  nor  councils, 
nor  canons  of  visible  Church,  much  less  edicts  of  any 
civil  magistrate  or  civil  session,  but  the  Scriptures  only, 
can  be  the  final  judge  or  rule." — Judge  Joseph  Story. 

"  IN  a  word,  destroy  .this  volume,  and  you  take  from  us- 
at  once  everything  which  prevents  existence  becoming  of 
all  curses  the  greatest;  you  blot  out  the  sun,  dry  up  the 
ocean,  and  take  away  the  atmosphere  of  the  moral  worldr 
»na  degrade  man  to  a  situation  from  which  he  may  look 
up  with  envy  to  that  of  the  brutes  that  perish." — Dr. 
Paywn. 


WATSON'S  REPLY.  57 


WATSON'S  REPLY. 


Paine's    Popularity    and    Habits — A    Curious   Side-Light    Thrown 
upon  Him  in  "  Men  and  Times   of  the  Revolution." 

"  About  this  period,  the  notorious  Tom  Paine  arrived  at 
Nantes,  in  the  Alliance  frigate,  as  Secretary  of  Colonel 
Laurens,  Minister  Extraordinary  from  Congress,  and  he 
took  up  his  quarters  at  my  boarding  place. 

"  He  was  (Tom  Paine)  coarse  and  uncouth  in  his  man- 
ners, loathsome  in  his  appearance,  and  a  disgusting  egotist, 
rejoicing  most  in  talking  of  himself,  and  reading  the 
effusions  of  his  own  mind.  Yet,  I  could  not  repress  the 
deepest  emotions  of  gratitude  toward  him,  as  the  instru- 
ment of  Providence  in  accelerating  the  declaration  of  our 
Independence.  He  certainly  was  a  prominent  agent  in 
preparing  the  public  sentiment  of  America  for  that  glori- 
ous event.  The  idea  of  Independence  had  not  occupied 
the  popular  mind,  and  when  guardedly  approached  on  the 
topic,  it  shrank  from  the  conception,  as  fraught  with  doubt, 
"with  peril,  and  with  suffering. 

"  In  1775  or  1776,  I  was  present  at  Providence,  Rhode 
Island,  in  a  social  assembly  of  most  of  the  prominent 
leaders  of  the  state.  I  recollect  that  the  subject  of  inde- 
'  pendence  was  cautiously  introduced  by  an  ardent  Whig, 
and  the  thought  seemed  to  excite  the  abhorrence  of  the 
whole  circle. 

"  A  few  weeks  after,  Paine's  "Common  Sense"  appeared 
and  passed  through  the  Continent  like  an  electric  spark. 
Jt  everywhere  flashed  conviction,  and  aroused  a  determined 


58  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

spirit,  which  resulted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
upon  the  4th  of  July,  ensuing.  The  name  of  Paine  was 
precious  to  every  Whig  heart,  and  had  resounded  through- 
out Europe. 

"  On  his  arrival,  being  announced,  the  Mayor,  and  some 
of  the  most  distinguished  citizens  of  Nantes,  called  upon 
him,  to  render  their  homage  of  respect.  I  often  officiated 
as  interpreter,  although  humbled  and  mortified  at  his 
filthy  appearance,  and  awkward  address.  Besides,  as  he 
had  been  roasted  alive  at  L'Orient,  and  well  basted  with 
brimstone,  he  was  absolutely  offensive,  and  perfumed  the 
whole  apartment.  He  was  soon  rid  of  his  respectable 
visitors,  who  left  the  room  with  marks  of  astonishment 
and  disgust.  I  took  the  liberty,  on  his  asking  for  the  loan  of 
a  clean  shirt,  of  speaking  to  him  frankly  of  his  dirty  appear- 
ance and  brimstone  odor,  and  I  prevailed  upon  him  to> 
stew,  for  an  hour,  in  a  hot  bath. 

"  This,  however,  was  not  done  without  much  entreaty, 
and  I  did  not  succeed,  until,  receiving  a  file  of  English 
newspapers,  I  promised,  after  he  was  in  the  bath  he  should 
have  the  reading  of  them,  and  not  before.  He  at  once 
consented,  and  accompanied  me  to  the  bath,  where  I  in- 
structed the  keeper,  in  French  (which  Paine  did  not 
understand),  gradually  to  increase  the  heat  of  the  water, 
until  le  Monsieur  serait  bien  bouilli.  He  became  so 
much  absorbed  in  the  reading,  that  he  was  nearly  par- 
boiled before  leaving  the  bath,  much  to  his  improvement 
and  my  satisfaction." 


DR.  BLACKBURN'S  REPLY.  59 


DR.   BLACKBURN'S  REPLY. 


The  Paine  Factor  in  American  Liberty  Not  as  Potent  as  Ingersoll 
Imagines — Important  and  Interesting  Facts. 

Correct  dates  are  in  evidence  concerning  the  priority  of 
Thomas  Paine  in  the  cause  of  American  liberty.  Years 
before  he~came  from  his  native  England  to  this  country,  in 
1774,  voices  of  freedom  were  in  the  air.  In  1748  a  record 
was  made  of  "  the  tendencies  of  American  legislatures  to 
independence,"  and  of  their  presumption  in  "  declaring 
their  own  rights  arid  privileges."  From  1758  onward,  the 
independence  of  the  colonies  was  predicted  near  at  hand. 
In  1765,  when  James  Otis  was  hailing  the  dawn  of  a  "  new 
empire,"  there  were  men  in  nearly  all  the  cities,  from 
Boston  to  Charleston,  S.  C.,  giving  utterance  to  such 
phrases  as  struck  hardest  in  the  Declaration  of  July,  1776. 

Samuel  Adams  had  been  for  years  praying  that  "Boston 
might  become  a  Christian  Sparta,"  before  he  insisted,  in 
1773,  that  the  colonies  should  have  a  Congress  to  frame  a 
bill  of  rights,  or  to  "  form  an  independent  State,  an 
American  common-wealth."  In  a  private  letter  of  Hutch- 
inson  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  October  9,  1773,  Samuel  Adams 
was  described  as  "  the  first  person  that  openly  and  in  any 
public  assembly  declared  for  a  total  independence. 
Within  these  seven  years  his  influence  has  been  gradually 
increasing,  until  he  has  obtained  such  an  ascendency  as  to 
direct  the  town  of  Boston  and  the  House  of  Representatives? 
and  consequently  the  Council,  just  as  he  pleases." 

Will  any  one  ascribe  to  Thomas  Paine  the  origin  of  the 


GO  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Mecklenburg  Declaration,  put  forth  in  May,  1775,  by  North 
•  Carolinians  who  renounced  their  allegiance  to  the  King  of 
England?  The  authors  of  it  seem  to  have  been  educated 
at  Princeton  College,  where  Dr.  "Witherspoon  was  still 
training  young  men  for  the  speedy  crisis.  We  might 
point  to  the  movements  of  other  Christian  men,  and  of 
patriotic  and  religious  bodies,  in  behalf  of  liberty. 

In  January,  1776,  Paine  sent  forth  the  little  book  on 
which  his  best  reputation  rests,  and  that  eminent  Christian, 
Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  appears  to  have  suggested  it,  and 
given  it  the  title  of  "  Common  Sense."  If  the  ideas  of  the 
book  had  not  been  already  popular  and  widely  spread,  it 
would  have  needed  almost  a  miracle  to  give  it  a  powerful 
influence;  but  we  are  told  by  Paine's  loudest  eulogist  that 
"  miracles  became  scarce  "  in  those  days.  Its  effect  may 
have  been  partly  due,  however,  to  the  fact  that  Paine  cited 
Gideon  and  Samuel  as  authorities  against  monarchy. 

It  would  be  easy  to  show  what  George  Washington 
thought  in  those  days,  but  what  did  Paine  and  his  admirers 
come  to  think  of  "  the  Father  of  his  country?"  In  1795 
the  Aurora  put  forth  these  words: 

If  ever  a  nation  was  debauched  by  a  man,  the  American  nation 
was  debauched  by  Washington.  If  ever  a  nation  was  deceived  by  a 
man,  the  American  nation  has  been  deceived  by  Washington.  .  .  Let 
the  history  of  the  federal  government  instruct  mankind,  that  the  mask 
of  patriotism  may  be  worn  to  conceal  the  foulest  designs  against  the 
liberties  of  the  people. 

Mr.  Hildreth  says  that  "  this,  indeed,  was  but  a  somewhat 
exaggerated  specimen  of  the  abusive  articles  to  be  found 
almost  daily  in  the  columns  of  the  Aurora,  from  the  office 
of  which  had  just  issued  a  most  virulent  pamphlet,  under 
the  form  of  a  letter  to  Washington  from  the  notorious 
Thomas  Paine,  whose  natural  insolence  and  dogmatism 
had  now  become  aggravated  by  habitual  drunkenness." 


DR.  BLACKBURN'S  REPLY.  61 

The  following  seems  to  be  quoted  from  the  said  pamphlet 
concerning  "Washington  : 

Treacherous  in  prirate,  and  hypocritical  in  public  life,  tho  world  will 
be  puzzled  to  decide  whether  he  was  an  apostate  or  an  imposter,  whether 
he  had  abandoned  good  principles,  or  ever  hud  any. 

The  world  has  not  been  at  all  puzzled  on  that  question, 
nor  on  the  question  of  Paine's  moral  character,  and  his 
Inter  influence.  Hildreth,  writing  of  the  year  1802,  says 
that  "  Paine,  instead  of  being  esteemed  as  formerly,  as  a 
lover  of  liberty,  whose  vigorous  pen  had  contributed  to 
hasten  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  was  now  detested 
by  large  numbers  as  the  libeler  of  Washington."  Hence 
the  damage  of  Paine's  influence  to  the  party  of  Thomas 
Jefferson. 


"  The  Lord,  by  His  divine  Spirit,  has  been  pleased  to  give 
me  an  understanding  of  what  I  read  therein." — Emperor 
Alexander  I. 

"  WE  are  astonished  to  find  in  a  lyrical  poem  of  such 
a  limited  compass  the  whole  universe — the  heavens  and 
the  earth — sketched  with  a  few  bold  touches." — Baron 
Humboldt  on  104£A  Psalm. 

"  FOR  more  than  a  thousand  years  the  Bible,  collectively 
taken,  has  gone  hand  in  hand  with  civilization,  science, 
law;  in  short,  with  moral  and  intellectual  cultivation; 
always  supporting,  and  often  leading,  the  way.  Good  and 
holy  men,  and  the  best  and  wisest  of  mankind,  the  kingly 
spirits  of  history,  have  borne  witness  to  its  influences  and 
have  declared.it  to  be  beyond  compare  the  most  perfect  in- 
strument gf  humanity." — Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge. 

"  THE  Bible  of  the  Christian  is,  without  exception,  the 
most  remarkable  work  now  in  existence.  In  the  libraries 


03  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

of  the  learned  are  frequently  seen  books  of  an  extraordi- 
nary antiquity,  and  curious  and  interesting  from  the  nature 
of  their  contents;  but  none  approach  the  Bible,  taken  in 
its  complete  sense,  in  point  of  age,  while  certainly  no 
production  whatever  has  any  pretensions  to  rival  it  in  dig- 
nity of  composition  or  the  important  nature  of  the  subject 
treated  of  in  its  pages." — Kitto. 

"  THE  Bible  is  the  book  of  life,  written  for  the  instruc- 
tion and  edification  of  all  ages  and  nations.  No  man  who 
has  felt  its  divine  beauty  and  power  would  exchange  this 
one  volume  for  all  the  literature  of  the  world." — Dr.  Lange. 

*'  So  great  is  my  veneration  for  the  Bible,  that  the  earlier 
my  children  begin  to  read  it  the  more  confident  will  be  my 
hopes  that  they  will  prove  useful  citizens  to  their  country, 
and  respectable  members  of  society." — John  Quincy 
Adams. 

"  I  HAVE  now  disposed  of  all  my  property  to  my  family. 
There  is  one  thing  more  I  wish  I  could  give  them,  and  that 
is,  the  Christian  religion.  If  they  had  that,  and  I  had  not 
given  them  one  shilling,  they  would  have  been  rich;  and 
if  they  had  not  that,  and  I  had  given  them,  all  the  world 
they  would  be  poor" — Patrick  Henry,  in  his  Last 
Will. 


.  HAT  FIELD'S  REPLY.  68 


DR.  HATFIELD'S  REPLY. 


Wm.  Carver's  Letter  to  Thomas  Paine,  and  Dr.  Hatfield's 
Comments. 

Colonel  Ingersoll  says  that  ministers  and  editors  of 
religious  papers  have  not  ceased  their  falsehoods  about 
Thomas  Paine,  and  if  they  do  not  stop  he  shall  convict 
them  at  the  bar  of  public  conscience  of  being  liars. 

Not  long  since  one  of  Pairie's  admirers  wrote  in  a  daily 
paper  that  "  the  stories  of  his  drunkenness  and  licentious- 
ness are  the  wicked  invention  of  the  clergy,  whose  path  he 
has  dared  to  cross,  and  who  only  refrain  from  practising 
the  abominable  cruelties  of  past  ages  upon  those  who 
differ  from  them,  not  because  of  want  of  will,  but  because 
their  strength  is  shorn."  This  assertion  has  been  shown 
to  be  false  by  the  testimony  of  one  who  knew  him  long  and 
intimately,  and  who  had  no  sinister  motives  whatever  for 
giving  to  the  world  this  picture  of  Paine's  manner  of  life. 

^ut  there  is  another  witness  whose  testimony  ought 
to  be  taken,  inasmuch  as  he  was  not  only  an  intimate 
friend  of  Paine,  but  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrines  that 
have  made  his  name  noted  among  men.  His  testimony 
must  be  received  by  his  friends  as  well  as  his  enemies, 
for  in  a  private  letter  to  the  author  of  the  Age  of  Reason, 
dated  December  2,  1806,  and  published  in  the  New  York 
Observer  November  1,  1877,  he  (William  Carver)  makes 
the  following  disclosures: 

"  A  respectable  gentleman  from  New  Rochelle  called  to  see  me  a  few 
days  back,  and  said  that  everybody  WQS  tired  of  you  there,  and  that  no 
one  would  undertake  to  board  and  lodge  you.  I  thought  this  was  the 


64  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

cast,  aa  I  found  you  at  a  tavern  in  a  most  miserable  situation.  You 
appeared  as  if  you  had  not  been  shaved  for  a  fortnight,  and  as  to  a 
shin,  ii  could  not  be  said  that  you  had  one  on — it  was  only  the  remains 
of  one — and  this  likewise  appeared  not  to  have  been  off  your  back  for 
a  fortnight,  and  was  nearly  the  color  of  tanned  leather;  and  you  had 
the  most  disagreeable  smell  possible — just  like  that  of  our  poor  beggars 
in  Eugland.  Do  you  remember  the  pains  I  took  to  clean  you  ?  that  1 
got  a  tub  of  warm  water  and  soap,  and  washed  you  from  head  to  foot, 
and  this  I  had  to  do  three  times  before  I  could  get  you  clean  ?  You 
»ay  also  that  you  found  your  own  liquors  during  the  time  you  boarded 
with  me  ;  but  you  should  have  said,  '  I  found  only  a  small  part  of  the 
liquor  I  drauk  during  my  stay  with  you ;  this  part  I  purchased  of  John 
Fellows,  which  was  a  demijohn  of  brandy,  containing  four  gallons, 
and  this  did  not  serve  me  three  weeks.'  This  can  be  proved;  and  I 
mean  not  to  say  anything  1  can  not  prove,  for  I  hold  truth  as  a  precious 
jewel.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  you  drank  one  quart  of  brandy  per 
day,  at  my  expense,  during  the  different  times  that  you  have  boarded 
with  me,  the  demijohn  ;alone  mentioned  'excepted,  and  the  last  four- 
teen weeks  you  were  sick.  Is  not  this  a  supply  of  liquor  for  dinner 
and  supper?  " 

This  very  remarkable  letter,  which  confirms  the  state- 
ments made  by  others  in  regard  to  Paine's  dissolute  habits, 
closes  with  the  following  words,  which  I  wish  might  be 
read  and  pondered  over  by  every  one  who  believes  in  the 
doctrines  Paine  labored  so  zealously  to  disseminate  among 
men:  "  Now,  sir,  I  think. I  have  drawn  a  complete  portrait 
of  your  character;  yet,  to  enter  upon  every  minutia,  would 
be  to  give  a  history  ol  your  life,  and  to  develop  the  falla- 
cious mask  of  hypocrisy  and  deception  under  which  you 
have  acted  in  your  political,  as  well  as  moral,  capacity  of 
life." 

Additional  Facts  Concerning  the  Great  Infidel. 

Mr.  Jay  dismissed  him  from  public  service,  under  the 
charge  that  u  he  had  violated  his  official  oath,  and  was 
destitute  ot  general  integrity,  and  marked  for  general 
falsehood." 


DR.  HAT  FIELDS  REPLY.  85 

When  he  wrote  the  Age  of  Reason,  he  says:  "I  had 
neither  Bible  nor  Testament  to  refer  to,  though  I  was  writ- 
ing against  both."  Only  think  of  his  audacious  wicked- 
ness! 

"That  he  bitterly  regretted  the  writing  and  the  publishing  of  the  Age 
of  Reason,  we  have  incontestable  proof.  During  his  last  illness  he 
asked  a  pious  young  woman,  Mary  Roscoe,  a  Quakeress,  who  frequently 
visited  him,  if  she  had  ever  read  any  ot  his  writings,  and  being  told 
that  she  had  read  very  little  of  them,  he  inquired  what  she  thought  of 
them,  adding,  'From  such  a  one.as  you  I  expect  a  true  answer.'  She 
told  him,  when  very  young  she  had  read  his  Age  of  Reason,  but  the 
more  she  read  ot  it  the  more  dark  and  distressed  she  felt,  and  she  threw 
it  into  the  fire.  'I  wish  all  had  done  as  you,' he  replied, 'for  if  the 
devil  ever  had  an  agency  in  any  work,  he  has  had  it  in  writing  that 
book.'  "  (Journal  of  Stephen  Orellet,  1809.) 

In  addition  to  the  above,  I  quote  the  following  from 
the  great  American  philosopher,  Benjamin  Franklin,  to 
whom  Paine  submitted  his  manuscript  of  the  Age  of 
Reason,  who  said: 

"  I  would  advise  you,  therefore,  not  to  attempt  unchaining  the  tiger  t 
but  to  burn  this  piece  before  it  is  seen  by  any  other  person,  whereby 
you  will  save  yourself  a  great  deal  of  mortification  from  the  enemies 
it  may  raise  you,  and  perhaps  a  good  deal  of  regret  and  repentance. 
If  men  are  so  wicked  with  religion,  what  would  they  be  without  it?" 
(Allibone's  Dictionary  of  Authors,  p.  1484.) 

Of  his  personal  character  and  degradation,  mark  the 
following: 

Says  his  biographer,  James  Cheetham,  page  314:  "In  his  private 
dealings  he  was  unjust,  never  thinking  of  paying  for  what  he  had  con- 
tracted. To  those  who  had  been  kind  to  him  he  was  more  than  ungrate- 
ful, for  to  ingratitude  he  added  mean  and  detestable  fraud.  He  was 
guilty  of  the  worst  species  of  seduction — the  alienating  of  a  wife  and 
children  from  a  husband  and  a  father.  Filthy  and  drunken,  he  was  a 
compound  of  all  the  vices." 

Ingersoll  says  he  died  in  the  "full  exercise  of  his  facul- 
ties, calmly,  fearlessly,  and  unshaken  in  the  belief  he  al- 
ways   held."      How  false  this  is  let  the  following  bear 
witness : 
s 


6S  maTAK&K  OF  1NOERSOLL. 

"  Dr.  Manley,  who  was  with  him  during  his  last  hours,  in  a  letter  to 
Cheetham,  in  1809,  writes:  'He  could  not  be  lelt  alone  night  or  day. 
He  not  only  required  to  have  some  person  with  him,  but  he  must  see 
that  he  or  she  was  there,  and  if,  as  it  would  sometimes  happen,  he  was 
left  alone,  he  would  scream  and  halloo  until  some  person  came  to  him. 
There  was  something  remarkable  ^in  his  conduct  about  this  period 
(which  comprises  about  two  weeks  immediately  preceding  his  death); 
he  would  call  out  during  his  paroxysms  of  distress,  without  inter- 
mission, "O  Lord,  help  me!  God,  help  me!  Jesus  Christ,  help  me  I 
O  Lord,  help  me !"  etc.,  repeating  the  same  expressions  without  the 
least  variation,  in  a  tone  of  voice  that  would  alarm  the  house.  It  was 
this  conduct  which  induced  me  to  think  that  he  had  abandoned  his 
former  opinions,  and  I  was  more  inclined  to  that  belief  when  I  undcr 
stcvnl  from  his  nurse  (who  is  a  very  serious,  and,  I  believe,  pious  woman), 
that  he  would  occasionally  inquire,  when  he  saw  her  engaged  with  a 
book,  what  she  was  reading,  aud  being  answered,  and  at  the  same  time 
asked  whether  she  should  read  aloud,  he  assented,  and  would  appear  to 
give  particular  attention.'  The  doctor  asked  him  if  he  believed  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  son  of  God  ?  After  a  pause  of  some  minutes,  he 
replied,  'I  have  no  wish  to  believe  on  that  subject.'  'For  my  own 
part,'  says  the  doctor,  '  I  believe  that  had  not  Thomas  Paine  been  such 
a  distinguished  infidel,  he  would  have  left  less  equivocal  evidences  of  a 
change  of  opinion.' " 

What  a  Catholic  Bishop  Says  of  Faine's  Closing  Hours. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  Fenwick  says: 
"A  short  time  before  Paine  died  I  was  sent  for  by  him."  He  wa», 
prompted  to  do  this  by  a  poor  Catholic  woman  who  went  to  see  him  in 
his  sickness,  and  who  told  him  if  anybody  could  do  him  any  good,  it 
was  a  Catholic  priest.  "  I  was  accompanied  by  P.  Kohlmann,  an  inti- 
mate friend.  We  found  him  at  a  house  in  Greenwich  (now  Greenwich 
Street,  New  York),  where  he  lodged.  A  decent-looking  elderly  woman 
came  to  the  door,  and  inquired  whether  we  were  the  Catholic  priests; 
'for,'  said  she,  'Mr.  Paine  has  been  so  much  annoyed  of  late  by  other 
denominations  calling  upon  him,  that  he  has  left  express  orders  to 
admit  no  one  but  the  clergymen  of  the  Catholic  Church.'  Upon  in- 
forming her  who  we  were,  she  opened  the  door  and  showed  us  into  the 
parlor.  *  *  *  '  Gentlemen,'  said  the  lady,  '  I  really  wish  you  may 
succeed  with  Mr.  Paine,  for  he  is  laboring  under  great  distress  of  mind 
ever  since  he  was  told  by  his  physicians  that  he  can  not  possibly  live, 
and  must  die  shortly.  He  is  truly  to  be  pitied.  His  cries 


DR.  HAT  FIELD'S  REPLY.  07 

when  left  alone  are  heart- rending.  "O  Lord,  help  me!" 
he  will  exclaim  during  his  paroxysms  of  distress ;  "God,  help  me!  " 
"Jesus  Christ,  help  me!  " — repeating  these  expressions  in  a  tone  of  voice 
that  would  alarm  the  house.  Sometimes  he  will  say,  "  O  God!  what 
have  I  done  to  suffer  so  much?  "  Then  shortly  after,  "  But  there  is  no 
God  ;  "  and  then  again,  "  Yet  if  there  should  be,  what  would  become  of 
me  hereafter?"  Thus  he  will  continue  for  some  time,  when,  on  a  sud- 
den, lie  will  scream  as  if  in  terror  and  agony,  and  call  for  me  by  my 
name.  On  one  occasion  I  inquired  what  he  wanted.  "  Slay  with  me," 
he  replied,  "  for  God's  sake!  for  I  can  not  bear  to  be  left  alone.''  I  told 
him  I  could  not  always  be  in  the  room.  "Then,"  said  he,  '•  send  even  a 
child  to  stay  icith  me,  for  it  is  «  hell  to  be  alone.'"  I  never  saw?  she  con- 
tinued, '  a  more  unhappy,  a  more  forsaken  man.  It  seems  he  can  not 
reconcile  himself  to  die.' 

"  Such  was  the  conversation  of  the  woman,  who  was  a  Protestant,  and 
who  seemed  very  desirous  that  we  should  afford  him  some  relief  in  a 
state  bordering  on  complete  despair.  Having  remained  some  time  in  the 
parlor,  we  at  length  heard  a  noise  in  the  adjoining  room.  We  proposed  to 
enter,  which  was  assented  to  by  the  woman,  who  opened  the  door  for  us. 
A  more  wretched  being  in  appearance  I  never  beheld.  He  was  lying 
in  a  bed  sufficiently  decent  in  itself,  but  at  present  besmeared  with  filth ; 
his  look  was  that  of  a  man  greatly  tortured  in  mind,  his  eyes  haggard, 
his  countenance  forbidding,  and  his  whole  appearance  that  of  one  whose 
better  days  had  been  but  one  continued  scene  of  debauch.  His  only 
nouiishrnent  was  milk  punch,  in  which  he  indulged  to  the  full  extent 
of  his  weak  state.  He  had  partaken  very  recently  of  it,  as  the  sides  and 
corners  of  his  mouth  exhibited  very  unequivocal  traces  of  it,  as  well  as 
of  blood  which  had  also  followed  in  the  track  and  left  its  mark  on  the 
pillow.  Upon  their  making  known  the  object  of  their  visit,  Paine  in- 
terrupted the  speaker  by  saying,  '  That's  enough,  sir,  that's  enough.  I 
see  what  you  would  be  about.  I  wish  to  hear  no  more  from  you,  sir; 
my  mind  is  made  up  on  that  subject.  I  look  upon  the  whole  of  the 
Christian  scheme  to  be  a  tissue  of  lies,  and  Jesus  Christ  to  be  nothing 
more  than  a  cunning  knave  and  impostor.  Away  with  you,  and  your 
God,  too  !  leave  the  room  instantly!  All  that  you  have  uttered  are  lies, 
filthy  lies,  and  if  I  had  a  little  more  time  I  would  prove  it,  as  I  did 
about  your  impostor,  Jesua  Christ.'  Among  the  last  utterances  that 
fell  upon  the  ears  of  the  attendants  of  this  dying  infidel,  and  which 
have  been  recorded  in  history,  were  the  words, c  My  God,  my  God, 
•why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? '  " 


68  MISTAKES  OF  INOBRSOLL. 

"  ALL  human  discoveries  seem  to  be  made  only  for  the 
purpose  of  confirming  more  and  more  strongly  the  truths 
contained  in  the  holy  Scriptures." — Sir  John  Herschel. 

"  YOUNG  man,  my  advice  to  you  is,  that  you  cultivate  an 
acquaintance  with  and  a  firm  belief  in  the  holy  Scriptures 
— this  is  your  certain  interest." — Benjamin  Franklvn. 

"AND,  finally,  I  may  state,  as  the  conclusion  of  the 
whole  matter,  that  the  Bible  contains  within  itself  all  that, 
under  God,  is  required  to  account  for  and  dispose  of  all 
forms  of  infidelity,  and  to  curn  to  the  best  and  highest  uses 
all  that  man  can  learn  of  nature." — Chancellor  Dawson. 

"  The  Bible  as  a  book  has  a  self-perpetuating  and 
multiplying  power.  Infidels  have  written  books;  where 
are  they?  Where  is  Porphyry,  Julian?  Fragments  of 
them  there  are;  but  we  are  indebted  even  for  this  to  Chris- 
tian criticism.  Where  is  Hume,  Voltaire,  Bolingbroke? 
It  requires  the  world's  reprieve  to  bring  a  copy  out  of  the 
prison  of  their  darkness.  Where  is  the  Bible?  Wherever 
there  is  light." — Bishop  Thomson. 

"  THE  first  thought  that  strikes  the  scientific  reader  is 
the  evidence  of  divinity,  not  merely  in  the  first  verse  of 
the  record  and  the  successive  fiats,  but  ini  the  whole  order 
of  creation.  There  is  so  much  that  the  most  recent  read- 
ings of  science  have  for  the  first  time  explained,  that  the 
idea  of  man  as  the  author  becomes  utterly  incomprehensi- 
ble. By  proving  the  record  true,  science  pronounces  it 
divine ;  for  who  could  have  correctly  narrated  the  secrets 
of  eternity  but  God  Himself." — Professor  Dana. 

"  WITH  thoughts  thus  expanded  and  touching  the 
infinite — with  the  the  soul  aglow  with  sublimity — witli  as- 
pirations exalted — let  us  turn  to  the  language  of  the  Bible, 
and  learn  whether  it  exalts  the  sensations  and  sentiments 


MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL.  .   69 

we  feel,  orcrusnes  them  by  its  weakness  and  impotency. 
Let  the  answer  come  from  the  Hebrew  Psalmist,  from  the 
prophets,  from  the  language  of  those  grand  apocalyptic 
visions  of  St.  John.  I  care  not  where  it  be  selected,  it 
furnishes  the  only  fitting  vehicle  to  express  the  thoughts 
that  overwhelm  us,  and  we  break  out  involuntarily  in  the 
language  of  God's  own  inspiration." — 0.  M.  Mitchell. 

"  SOME  thousand  famous  writers  come  up  in  this  century 
to  be  forgotten  in  the  next.  But  the  silver  cord  of  the 
Bible  is  not  loosened,  nor  its  golden  bowl  broken,  though 
time  chronicles  his  tens  of  centuries  passed  by.  *  *  * 
You  can  trace  the  path  of  the  Bible  across  the  world  from 
the  day  of -Pentecost  to  this  day.  As  a  river  springs  up 
in  the  heart  of  a  sandy  continent,  having  its  father  in  the 
skies;  as  the  stream  rolls  on,  making,  in  that  arid  waste,  a 
belt  of  verdure  wherever  it  turns  its  way;  creating  palm 
groves  and  fertile  plains,  where  the  smoke  of  the  cottage 
curls  up  at  eventide,  and  marble  cities  send  the  gleam  of 
their  splendor  far  into  the  sky;  such  has  been  the  course 
of  the  Bible  on  earth." — Theodore  Parker. 

"  To  a  sincere  and  unsophisticated  mind  it  must  be  evi- 
dent that  the  grand  outlines  sketched  by  Moses  are  the 
same  as  those  which  modern  science  enables  us  to  trace, 
however  imperfect  and  unsettled  the  details  furnished  by 
scientific  inquiries  may  appear  on  many  points.  "What- 
ever changes  we  may  expect  to  be  introduced  by  new 
discoveries,  in  our  present  view  of  the  universe  and  the 
globe  the  prominent  traits  of  this  vast  picture  will  remain. 
And  these  only  are  traced  out  in  this  admirable  account  of 
Genesis.  These  outlines  were  sufficient  for  the  moral 
purposes  of  the  book;  the  scientific  details  are  for  us 
patiently  to  investigate. — Professor  Guyot. 


70  MISTAKES  OF  INOEltSOLL. 

"  THOMAS  Paine,  in  his  extreme  fear  lest  he  should  be 
made  the  victim  of  some  childish  fancy,  or  that  somebody 
else  would  be  victimized,  attacked  Masonry  on  the  ground 
tlrat  it  was  a  superstition  that  had  come  down  from  the 
Persian  world,  and  was  as  full  of  nonsense  as  anything 
could  be.  He  said  that  in  the  Masonic  hall  the  presiding 
officer  must  sit  in  the  east  end  of  the  room,  the  Masons 
must  thus  salute  the  east,  and  the  lamps  must  be  most 
abundant  on  the  south  wall  of  the  room  to  mark  the  path 
of  the  sun;  and  that  the  2-ith  of  June,  a  day  so  sacred 
in  Masonry,  was  the  day  on  which  the  old  sun- worshipers 
built  fires  upon  all  the  mountain  tops  and  hill  tops  near 
their  homes  to  celebrate  the  fact  that  the  sun  had  reached 
his  hottest  place  in  the  temperate  zone.  But,  like  much 
of  Paine's  reasoning,  it  was  not  important,  if  true.  There 
is  no  harm  in  paying  great  respect  to  his  dignity,  the  sun. 
One  would  better  take  off  his  hat  before  the  sun  in  a  grand 
summer  morning  than  to  render  such  a  homage  to  a  wicked 
duke  or  a  painted  girl. — Prof.  Swing. 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  71 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY. 


The  Renowned  Pastor  of  over  a  Thousand  Church  Members  Rises 

in  Defense  of  the  Truth— The  Ax  Laid  at  the 

Root  of  the  Ingersoll  Tree — 

The  Solemn  Issue. 

Teachers  of  men  are  like  trees.  We  can  no  more  trust 
the  words  and  theorizings  of  the  one  than  the  leaves  and 
blossoms  of  the  other.  But  when  fruiting  time  has  come 
we  shall  have  tests  that  never  fail*  Grapes  do  not  corne  of 
thorns,  nor  figs  of  thistles.  Every  good  tree  will  have  in- 
fallible witness  in  good  fruit,  and  every  evil  tree  in  evil 
fruit.  Just  so  of  men  who  set  up  for  prophets.  When 
their  doctrines  have  come  to  fruitage,  there  will  be  in  the 
quality  of  that  fruit,  according  as  it  is  good  or  evil,  the  in- 
fallible test  of  the  quality  of  what  has  been  taught. 

This  is  our  Lord's  canon  of  proving  things.  And  He 
bids  us  stand  in  the  ways  and  challenge  whatever  claims 
authority  over  our  hearts  and  lives.  We  are  not  to  accept 
a  teacher,  because  he  has  the  look  of  an  apostle.  We  are 
not  to  accept  his  doctrine,  because  it  charms  the  ear  and 
gives  great  promise  of  blessing.  We  are  to  demand  as 
prime  conditions  of  our  acceptance  a  showing  of  fruits; 
results  wrought,  whereby  the  doctrine  which  appeals  to  us 
is  unequivocally  demonstrated  to  be  that  which  exalts  God 
and  blesses  men. 

Of  course  Christ  and  His  teachings  must  take  the  same 
test  that  is  applied  to  other  teachers  and  other  doctrines. 
N"o  question  is  a  fairer  one  with  which  to  meet  the  claims 
of  Christianity  than.  What  fruits  has  it  to  show?  Have  its 


72  MISTAKES  OF  1NGBR80LL. 

teachings  made  men  better  or  worse?  Have  they  tended 
to  emphasize  and  exalt  truth,  pnrity,  justice,  benevolence; 
to  secure  the  well-being  of  individuals,  communities, 
nations;  or  have  they  tended  to  beget  untruth,  impurity, 
injustice,  se]fishness,  cruelty,  tyranny,  and  thus  heap  upon 
men  increasing  mischiefs  and  woes?  And  tins  is  the 
question  between  Mr.  Ingersoli  and  the  Ministers  and 
Churches  he  assails  so  bitterly  in  his  glorilie-.ition  of 
Thomas  Paine.  We,  of  the  Ministry  and  the  Churches, 
stand  upon  the  Bible  as  the  divinely-inspired  and  hence 
divinely-authoritative  "Word  of  God.  We  affirm  that  this 
book  sets  forth  the  true  character  of  God,  the  aims  and 
methods  of  His  moral  government,  the  scheme  of  His  de- 
vising, whereby  shall  be  secured  His  own  Litest  honor 
and  the  highest  well-being  of  His  creatures.  We  affirm 
that  upon  men's  believing  upon  the  crucified  Son  of  God 
therein  set  forth  as  the  Saviour  of  men  depends  their  sal- 
vation. We  affirm  that  only  as  men  accept  the  doctrines  of 
this  book,  and  orC.cr  their  lives  thereby,  can  they  attain 
individually  to  the  largest  measures  of  intellectual  and 
moral  development;  or,  as  associated  together,  enjoy  the 
highest  social  security,  prosperity,  and  happiness;  or  as  a 
nation  make  sure  of  real  greatness  and  lasting  glory. 

Mr.  Ingersoli  denies  all  this.  lie  declares  that  Christian- 
ity is  a  "  superstition,"  a  bundle  of  "  ancient  lies;"  that  the 
doctrine  of  Salvation  by  Faith  is  "infamous;"  that  the 
church  is  "ignorant,  bloody,  relentless;"  that  it  "confis- 
cates property,"  "  tortures,  burns,  dooms  to  perdition,"  all 
who  are  outside  of  its  pale,  and  does  it  with  supreme  delight; 
that  religion  "puts  fetters"  on  man's  intellect;  that  it  is 
"destructive  of  happiness;"  a  "hydra-headed  monster, 
thrusting  its  thousand  fangs  into  the  bleeding,  quivering 
hearts  of  men;"  that  it  "  fills  the  earth  with  mourning, 


DR.  QOODWIN'S  REPLY.  73 

heaven  with  hatred,  the  present  with  fear,  the  future  with 
fire  and  despair."  And  over  against  this,  Mr.  Ingersoll 
sets,  as  the  true  religion,  the  grand  panacea  of  all  human 
ills,  the  scheme  of  infidelity.  "Infidelity,"  he  sajs,  "is 
liberty."  It  is  this  which  "frees  men  from  prison;  this 
•  which  civilizes;  this  that  lights  the  fires  on  the  altars  of 
reason;  that  fills  the  world  with  light;  this  that  opens  dull 
eyes;  brings  music  into  the  soul;  wipes  tears  from  fur- 
rowed cheeks;  puts  out  the  fires  of  civil  war;  destroys 
from  the  earth  the  dogmas  of  ignorance,  prejudice,  power, 
and  drives  from  this  beautiful  face  of  the  earth  the  fiend 
of  fear." 

Ingersoll's  Sad  Need  of  Spectacles  at  a  Much  Earlier  Period  in 

Life — What  He  Sees  in  the  Historic  Spectrum — 

A  Remarkable  Phenomenon. 

This  is  a  clear,  sharp  issue.  Mr.  Ingersoll  stands  before 
our  text  and  says,  "  Christianity  can  not  take  its  own  test- 
It  claims  to  yield  grapes,  but  when  the  truth  is  told,  it 
has  only  tearing,  torturing  thorns  to  show.  It  claims  to 
be  a  gentle,  innocent  sheep,  but  it  is  nothing  other  than  a 
ravenous,  blood-thirsty  wolf  in  disguise.  The  only  genuine 
grape-vine,  the  only  true  sheep,  is  the  doctrine  which  I 
teach,  which  I  learned  of  my  master,  the  one  great,  un- 
equaled  teacher  of  the  ages,  the  apostle  of  liberty,  the  light 
and  hope  of  the  world — Thomas  Paine." 

What  I  propose  is  to  apply  this  test  of  the  text  to  both 
these  schemes;  to  set  Christianity  and  its  fruits  side  ,by 
side  with  infidelity  and  its  fruits,  and  see  whether  Mr. 
Ingersoll  has  told  us  the  truth.  It  does  not  concern  my 
purpose  to  speak  particularly  of  Thomas  Paine,  and  .1 
shall  not  stop,  therefore,  to  consider  at  length  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
apotheosis  of  him.  He  is  entitled  to  his  opinion,  and  so 
are  we  to  ours.  But  I  must  confess  to  have  read  his  oration 


74  MISTAKES  OF  JNOERSOLL. 

with  amazement.  I  had  always  supposed  hitherto  that 
there  were  some  other  unselfish,  pure-rninded,  liberty-lov- 
ing men  in  those  old  times  who  had  something  to  do  with 
originating  and  carrying  to  success  the  scheme  of  American 
independence.  But  it  seems  we  have  all  been  mistaken, 
and  history  has  been  mistaken,  and  so  for  a  hundred  years 
the  country  has  gone  on  heaping  eulogies  upon  men  that 
never  deserved  them.  Somehow,  this  terrible  despot  and 
fiend  of  Christianity  has  contrived  to  falsify  the  records, 
blind  the  people,  and  keep  hid  away  in  its  awful  dungeons 
of  disgrace  and  infamy  the  one  purest  hero,  the  one  pre- 
eminent magnate  of  that  glorious  epoch.  It  does  not  exactly 
appear  how  this  was  done.  It  does  not  appear  that  any 
other  patriot-infidel  was  doomed  to  like  dishonor.  Never- 
theless, it  has  come  to  pass,  that  as  to  this  man,  the  "first 
to  perceive  the  destiny  of  the  new  world,"  the  man  that 
"  did  more  than  any  other  to  cause  the  declaration  of  In- 
dependence," the  very  Achilles  of  the  revolution,  without 
whose  voice  and  sword,  apparently,  everything  would  have 
come  to  naught — the  whole  nation  has  for  a  century  been 
reading  and  re-reading  its  history,  and  hardly  made  men- 
tion of  his  name!  "What  strange,  what  base  ingratitude  is 
this!  For  statesmen,  historians,  orators,  poets,  to  keep 
sounding  for  decade  after  decade  the  praises  of  Washington, 
and  Jefferson,  and  Franklin,  and  the  Adamses,  and  ever 
BO  many  more,  and  yet  never  to  have  lifted  one  acclaim  for 
the  hero  that  overtopped  them  all !  Evidently,  Mr.  Inger- 
soll's  spectacles  should  have  come  into  use  long  years  ago. 
Listening  to  this  arraignment  of  history,  one  can  not  feel 
e  that  any  of  its  so-called  verdicts  are  to  be  trusted. 
How  do  we  know  that,  as  a  nation,  we  have  not  been  guilty 
of  like  injustice  and  tyranny  in  the  judgments  that  have 
been  passed  on  Jefferson  Davis  and  Benedict  Arnold? 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  75 

And  who  shall  be  quite  sure  that  not  only  they  may  yet  be 
rescued  from  the  infamy  that  now  envelops  them,  but  even 
Judas  Iscariot  may  not  prove  to  have  been  calumniated  by 
this  relentless  tyranny  of  a  misnamed  gospel,  and  take  his 
place  alongside  of  Arnold  and  Paine  among  the  stars. 
Here,  at  least,  is  a  new  field  in  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  may 
acquire  laurels. 

Further   Optical  Delusions  of  the   Eloquent  Colonel — Why  Paine 
Came  to  America. 

As  to  the  claims  put  forward  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Paine's 
leadership  in  securing  our  national  independence,  I  can 
not  refrain  from  a  passing  word.  There  is  no  proof  what- 
ever that  any  injustice  has  ever  been  done  Mr.  Paine  in 
the  estimate  of  his  services  by  our  historians.  Mr.  Tnger- 
soll  has  not  added  a  single  fact  to  those  well  known  before. 
No  doubt  Mr.  Paine  rendered  valuable  service,  especially 
with  his  pen,  in  the  interests  of  freedom;  no  doubt  he 
deserved  all  the  encomiums  and  substantial  records  he 
received  at  the  hands  of  State  Legislatures  and  of  Congress. 
So  far  as  I  know,  no  one  has  ever  disputed  this,  But 
when  Mr.  Ingersoll  attempts  to  go  beyond  this,  and  hold 
up  Mr.  Paine  as  the  "  great  apostle  of  liberty,"  the  "  first 
to  perceive  the  destiny  of  the  new  world,"  as  "  doing  more 
to  cause  the  declaration  of  Independence  than  any 
other  man,"  and  declares  his  pamphlet,  entitled  "  Common 
Sense,"  the  "first  argument  for  separation"  of  the  colonies 
for  the  Mother  country — he  goes  vastly  beyond  the  facts. 
He  may  believe  Mr.  Paine  entitled  to  all  the  credit  he 
claims,  but  he  certainly  can  not  prove  it.  The  truth  of 
history  is  not  to  be  overborne  by  a  lawyer's  specious  plea, 
nor  is  its  voice  to  be  drowned  beyond  the  passing  moment, 
by  the  applause  evoked  by  the  wit  and  eloquence  of  a 
gifted  orator. 


76  MISTAKES  OF  INOER30LL 

The  first  significant  fact  is,  that  there  is  no  proof  what- 
ever  that  Paine  came  to  this  country  with  any  political 
purpose.  He  lost  his  place  as  exciseman,  obtained  an  in- 
troduction to  Benjamin  Franklin,  then  U.  S.  Minister  in 
England,  who  had  received  so  many  applications,  that 
he  had  written  a  tract  giving  information  about  America 
— and  from  him  secured  a  note  o^  introduction  to  Franklin's 
son-in-law,  Bache,  commending  him  as  needing  employ- 
ment, and  so  far  as  he  could  judge,  worthy  of  confidence. 
He  reached  this  country  in  December,  1774,  and  through 
Mr.  Bache's  influence,  obtained  employment  as  the  editor 
of  a  magazine.  And  this  is  all  there  is  of  his  coming.  So 
far  as  appears,  it  was  purely  a  matter  of  getting  daily 
bread. 

Paine  and  American  Independence — The  Cause  of  Liberty  at 

White  Heat  before  Mr.  Paine  gets  Around — 

Interesting  Facts. 

In  January,  1776,  when  he  had  been  in  the  country  barely 
a  year,  he  published  his  pamphlet.  Mr.  Bancroft  says  he 
did  it  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Franklin,  who  had  then 
returned  from  England,  hopeless  of  securing  any  possible 
adjustment  of  the  difficulties  between  the  colonies  and  the 
home  government.  The  pamphlet  was  timely.  It  was 
written  in  a  clear,  vigorous,  and  telling  style;  took  ground 
boldly  in  favor  of  independence,  and  was,  without  doubt, 
greatly  effective  in  urging  forward  the  cause  which  it 
championed.  But  this  is  all  that  can  be  claimed  for  it. 

Franklin  had  cherished  and  uttered  the  same  views  for 
years,  and  so  had  Patrick  Henry,  James,  Otis,  both  the 
Adamses,  and  many  others.  Indeed,  ever  since  the  passage 
of  the  Stamp  Act  there  had  been  a  growing  conviction 
among  nearly  all  the  patriotic  men]  of  that  day,  that  the 
separation  of  the  colonies  and  the  establishment  of  an 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  HE  PLY.  77 

independent  government  was  inevitable — a  mere  question 
of  time.  And  at  the  date  when  this  pamphlet  appeared, 
this  conviction  was  the  dominant  one  among  a  vast  majority 
of  the  people,  and  with  reason.  Boston  port-bill  was  a 
fact,  and  had  stirred  the  blood  of  all^the  colonists.  Franklin 
had  been  insulted  before  the  king's  privy  council,  and  that 
made  the  red  heat  white.  More  than  all,  Lexington,  and 
Concord,  and  Bunker-Hill  had  been  fought,  and  the  smell 
of  powder  was  everywhere  in  the  air.  The  king  had 
refused  to  listen  to  the  second  remonstrance  of  the  colonies 
against  .taxation  without  representation,  had  issued  his 
proclamation  for  the  suppression  of  rebellion.  John 
Adams'  wife,  Abigail,  hearing  that  proclamation,  stopped 
her  spinning  wheel,  and  wrote  to  her  husband : 

'•This  intelligence  will  make  a  plain  path  for  you,  though  a  danger- 
ous 0110.  I  could  not  join  to-day  in  the  petitions  of  our  worthy  pastor 
for  a  reconciliation  between  our  no  longer  parent  but  tyrant  state,  and 
these  colonies.  Let  us  separate !  let  us  renounce  them !  and  let  us  be- 
seech the  Almighty  to  bfast  their  counsels,  and  bring  to  naught  all 
their  devices." 

This  was  in  August,  1775,  six  months  before  Paine's 
pamphlet  saw  the  light. 

And  Mr.  Bancroft  says  of  Mrs.  Adams'  appeal,  "  Her 
voice  was  the  voice  of  JSrew  England." 

Samuel  Adams  had  said,  also,  in  the  Massachusetts 
Assembly,  >;  The  declaration  of  independence  and  treaties 
with  foreign  powers  are  to  be  expected." 

Jefferson  had  said — speaking  of  the  Stamp  Act  and 
kindred  legislation — •"  I  will  cease  to  exist  before  I  will 
submit  to  a  connection  with  England  on  such  terms  as  the 
British  Parliament  propose;  and  in  this  I  speak  the  senti- 
ment of  America." 

And  still  beyond  this,  Franklin  had  introduced  into  the 
assembly  of  Pennsylvania  his  plan  for  a  confederation  of 
the  colonies 


78  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  when  Mr.  Paine's  utterances 
were  put  forth.  They  were  opportune  and  helpful.  But 
chiefly  as  inciting  to  an  earlier  inauguration  of  the  conflict 
that  was  sure  to  come. 

Washington  was  at  the  head  of  the  army — Boston 
invested  with  20,000  men — Norfolk  had  been  burned — the 
whole  country  was  ready  to  burst  into  a  flame. 

Doubtless  to  Mr.  Paine  belongs  in  part  the  honor 
shared  by  many  of  helping  to  strike  the  match  which 
kindled  the  fires  of  the  Revolution.  But  he  no  more 
merits  all  that  honor  than  James  Warren  or  Orispus 
Attucks.  The  Continent  was  heaving  and  the  eruption 
was  sure  to  come.  Mr.  Paine  simply  helped  to  break  the 
thin  crust,  and  precipitate  the  outbreak  of  the  long-pent 
fires  of  the  volcano. 

Paine's  Fractional  Glory  in  the  French  Republic". 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  statement  respecting  Mr.  Paine's  part  in 
the  assembly  of  the  French  Republic,  deserves  a  passing 
word.  His  statement  is  that  "  Thomas  Paine  had  the 
courage,  the  goodness,  the  justice,  to  vote  against  the  death 
of  Louis  XYI,"  when  •'  all  were  demanding  the  death  of  the 
king,"  and  hence  when  "  so  to  vote  was  to  vote  against 
his  own  life."  This  would  make  it  appear  that  Mr.  Paine 
stood  almost,  if  not  quite,  alone  in  that  assembly;  took 
upon  himself  the  peril  of  martyrdom  for  his  clemency. 
But  read  Lamartine's  history  of  the  Girondists,  and  see 
how  differently  a  Frenchman  loving  democracy,  and  hating 
kingship  as  ardently  as  Thomas  Paine,  puts  the  matter.  M  r. 
Lamartine  says,  Mr.  Paine  having  received  from  the  king 
6,000,000  francs  for  his  country,  had  "  neither  the  memory 
nor  the  dignity  befitting  his  station,"  but  by  his  paper,  ivad 
before  the.  convention, "  heaped  a  long  series  of  insults  upon 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  79 

a  man  whose  generous  assistance  lie  had  formerly  solicited, 
and  to  whom  he  owed  the  preservation  of  his  own  country." 
And  when  the  question  of  the  death  of  the  king  was  at 
last,  after  a  full  month  of  debate,  brought  to  a  vote — there 
were  721  voices  uttered  from  the  tribune.  Of  these  387 
were  for  death,  and  334  for  exile.  So. that,  whatever  the 
"courage,  the  goodness,  the  justice,  the  sublimity  of  devotion 
to  principle,  the  peril  of  life,"  involved  in  Mr.  Paine's  vote, 
he  had  333  sharers  of  his  heroism  and  his  glory. 

A  Fair  Test,  with  Some  Plain  Philosophy. 

But  to  come  now  to  the  purpose  in  hand  and  consider 
his  arraignment  of  Christianity.  Is  it  possible  to  apply 
this  test-principle  of  the  text,  so  that  we  may  know  to  a 
certainty  what  the  relative  claims  of  the  two  systems 
asking  our  acceptance  are?  For  they  have  both  been  long 
enough  before  the  world  to  produce  ample  results,  and 
results  whose  quality  is  ascertainable  beyond  doubt. 

Let  us  take  first,  then,  the  character  of  the  founder  of 
Christianity,  and  test  that,  and  then  the  character  of  the 
teachers  of  infidelity,  and  test  them.  We  shall  be  sure  to 
be  on  the  right  track  in  such  inquiry.  For  while  it  does 
not  greatly  matter  what  the  character  of  a  man  may  be 
who  gives  us  a  new  theory  of  electricity,  or  light,  or  any- 
thing— his  discovery  being  of  equal  value  whether  he  be 
honest  or  dishonest,  temperate  or  intemperate,  moral  or 
immoral — it  does  matter  what  the  personal  character 
of  a  teacher  of  a  new  scheme  of  morals  is.  He  comes 
claiming  our  acceptance  of  certain  doctrines  which,  He 
says,  are  vital  to  our  welfare.  He  declares  that  only  as 
we  accept  His  dogmas  can  we  lead  lives  of  highest  happi- 
ness and  usefulness.  That  everything,  in  short,  that  can 
be  called  good,  is  bound  up  in  His  teachings.  Naturally, 


80  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

therefore,  and  of  right,  we  look  to  Him  for  an  illustration 
of  what  He  teaches.  If  He  wants  us  to  be  truthful,  honest, 
moral,  He  must  be.  The  moment  we  fail  to  find  in  the 
teacher  the  exemplification  of  the  thing  taught,  that 
moment  the  power  of  his  teaching  is  broken.  I  am 
speaking,  of  course,  of  one  who  has  a  system  which  he 
claims  to  be  superior  to  others,  and  which  he  insists  that 
men  must  receive  or  suffer  great  loss.  It  is  only  folly  for 
a  known  deceiver  to  try  to  enforce  truthfulness,  for  a  known 
thief  to  teach  honesty,  or  a  libertine  virtue.  We  say, 
instinctively  and  scornfully  to  such — "  Physician,  heal 
thyself." 

We  have  hence  the  best  of  rights  to  test  this  great 
teacher  of  Christianity,  and  to  test  Him  rigidly.  We  have 
the  right  to  put  His  life  to  proof  everywhere,  and  see 
whether  it  shows  a  quality  accordant  with  His  speech.  For 
He  claims  for  His  teaching  not  only  supreme  authority,  but 
the  authority  of  truth  that  does  not  rest  content  till  it  has 
taken  possession  of  a  man  in  the  very  roots  of 'his  being, 
penetrated  him  through  and  through,  arid  made  him  so  en- 
tirely a  lover  of  truth  that  he  will  tolerate  no  fellowship 
with  anything  else.  More  than  this.  His  standards  of  morals 
deal  not  so  much  with  words  and  deeds,  as  with  their  un- 
derlying motives.  With  Him  covetousness  is  not  so  much 
looking  upon  the  things  of  others  with  the  eyes  of  the 
body  as  with  the  eyes  of  the  soul.  To  lust  after  a  woman  is 
as  truly  adultery,  as  the  open  violation  of  the  seventh  com- 
mandment. It  is  murder  as  truly  to  have  the  thought 
daubed  in  blood  as  the  hands. 

Furthermore,  they  who  accept  this  teacher's  doctrine  must 
stand  ready  to  surrender  everything  on  the  call  of  their 
master;  to  leave  home  and  its  treasures;  to  take  oppositions, 
persecutions,  sufferings,  death  even,  and  to  do  this  without 


DR.  GOODWIN' 8  REPLY.  81 

murmuring.  And  only  they  who  stand  ready  to  do  this, 
who  covet  to  have  their  wills  merged  in  their  teacher's, 
who  carry  in  their  souls  the  ideal  of  a  perfection  as  high 
as  God,  and  who  consciously  and  absorbingly  desire  and 
seek  the  good  of  men ;  only  these  can  be  counted  true  dis- 
ciples. 

Jesus  Christ  and  the  Testimony — Fame's  Confession. 

Here  now  is  opportunity  indeed  for  tests.  And  this 
founder  of  the  new  scheme,  which  He  insists  on  having 
men  receive,  must  demonstrate  in  Himself  the  spirit  of  His 
own  doctrines,  must  illustrate  unequivocally  their  fruits,  or 
be  rejected.  "What  now  are  the  facts?  Why,  clearly  this,  that 
He  stands  there  on  the  track  of  history  the  exact  embodi- 
ment of  every  truth  He  uttered.  The  keenest  and  most 
relentless  criticism  has  had  His  life  as  in  the  focus  of  its 
blazing  examination  for  centuries,  has  searched  that  life 
back  and  forth  through  every  phase  of  it,  from  His  child- 
hood to  the  last  agony  on  the  cross,  and  yet  is  compelled 
to  confess  that  nowhere  is  there  a  day  or  an  hour,  a  deed 
or  a  word,  or  a  thought,  that  does  not  exactly  mirror  the 
teachings  of  His  lips. 

More  than  that,  He  stands  there  the  one  only  character  of 
all  the  ages  absolutely  without  a  svot  or  Flemish,  and 
this,  as  I  have  said,  not  as  the  verdict  of  partial  admirers, 
bnt  of  those  who  would,  many  of  them,  be  only  too  glad  to 
prove  Him  a  hypocrite  or  a  cheat. 

Theodore  Parker,  and  he  is  no  enthusiastic  devotee  of 
Christianity,  is  compelled  to  say  of  Him  that,  u  He  unites 
in  Himself  the  sublimest  precepts  and  divinest  practices; 
that  He  rises  free  from  all  the  prejudices  of  His  age,  nation 
or' sect,  pours  out  a  doctrine  beautiful  as  the  light,  sublime 
as  heaven,  true  as  God 

6 


82  'MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Mr.  Chubb,  a  noted  English  infidel,  admits  in  his  "  True 
Gospel,"  "  that  we  have  in  Christ  an  example  of  one  who 
was  just,  honest,  upright,  sincere,  who  did  no  wrong,  no 
injury  to  any  man,  and  in  whose  mouth  was  no  guile." 

Rousseau  says:  "What  sweetness,  what  purity  in  His 
manner!  what  sublimity  in  His  maxims!  what  profound- 
ness in  His  discourses!  Where  is  the  man,  where  the 
philosopher,  who  could  so  live  and  so  die  without  weakness 
and  without  ostentation!  If  the  life  and  death  of  Socrates 
were  those  of  a  Sage,  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
were  those  of  a  God." 

And  Thomas  Paine  himself  is  at  pains  to  testify  in  his 
Age  of  Reason,  that  "' nothing  that  is  here  said" — in  his 
holding  up  of  Christianity  to  ridicule,  "  can  apply,  even 
with  the  most  distant  disrespect,  to  the  real  character  of 
Jesus  Christ.  He  was  a  virtuous  and  an  amiable  man. 
The  morality  that  He  preached  and  practiced  was  of  the 
most  benevolent  kind." 

What  the  Testimony   Demonstrates  and  its  Significance. 

Such  confessions  as  these  from  the  lips  of  infidels  are 
most  amazing.  They  demonstrate  that  Jesus  Christ  made 
good  His  astounding  pretensions,  that  He  was  literally 
without  sin,  and  had  the  best  of  rights  to  call  Himself  the 
light  of  the  world.  But  the  significance  of  these  .confes- 
sions goes  further  than  this.  For  this  stainless,  perfect 
character  is  an  absolute  impossibility,  if  the  claims  of  in- 
fidelity are  true.  Where  shall  we  look  for  the  exemplifi- 
cation of  a  system  of  morals  but  to  its  founder? 

We  look  to  Brigham  Young  as  the  prophet  and  head  of 
Mormonism,  and  we  find  exactly  what  we  should  expect 
froin  the  teachings  of  that  faith;  a  polygamist  and  a 
despiser  of  all  doctrines  outside  of  the  book  of  Mormon. 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  83 

We  look  to  Mohammed,  and  find  him  exactly  what  we 
should  expect  from  the  Koran,  a  man  who  believes  in 
sensuality  and  in  bloodshed  to  secure  his  ends. 

So  in  the  gods  of  the  Romans  and  Greeks,  and  Hindoos 
and  Egyptians,  we  find  exactly  such  gods  as  we  should 
look  for  from  the 'religions  to  which  they  belong — gods 
stamped  with  deceit,  cruelty,  blood-thirstiness,  lust. 

So  it  should  be  here,  if  Christianity  is  what  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  declares  it  to  be,  unloving,  tyrannous,  bloody,  delighting 
in  nothing  so  much  as  deceits  and  woes,  then  Jesus  Christ 
should  be  of  a  piece  with  it.  Nay,  in  Him  all  these  foul 
things  should  be  headed  up.  The  stream  can  not  rise 
higher  nor  be  purer  than  its  source.  If  lying,  and  rapine, 
and  lust,  and  violence  are  the  law  or  the  practice,  then  in- 
fallibly sure  are  we  that  some  Henry  VIII,  or  Philip  II, 
orCsesar,  or  Borgia,  or  Nero,  either  makes  the  laws  or  wields 
the  scepter.  If  Christianity  is  a  bundle  of  lies,  a  code  of 
cruelty,  then  he  that  originated  it  stands  proved  either  the 
prince  of  impostors  or  the  worst  of  fiends.  "Whereas,  upon 
the  testimony  of  infidels  themselves,  He  is  the  one  in 
whose  speech  and  life  there  is  more  of  purity,  goodness, 
heaven,  than  in  any  other  character  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  He  is,  in  short,  the  one  combined  God-man  of  all 
history! 

Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill,  who  is  an  avowed  atheist,  and 
of  course  denies  the  divine  character  and  authority  of 
Christianity,  declares  that  it  is  of  no  use  to  say  that  Christ 
as  exhibited  in  the  Gospels,  is  "  not  historical."  And  lie 
asks,  "  Who  among  His  disciples,  or  among  their  proselytes, 
was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus,  or 
of  imagining  the  life  and  character  revealed  in  the  Gospels? 
Certainly  not  the  fishermen  of  Galilee;  still  less  the  early 
Christian  writers."  And  Mr.  Lecky,  who  agrees  with  Mr. 


84  MISTAKEN  Of  1NGERSOLL. 

Mill  in  rejecting  the  iivineness  of  Christianity,  agrees 
also  with  him  in  cor  .eding  the  historical  claims  of  botn 
Christ  s,nd  His  reputed  doctrines.  His  language  is,  "  It 
was  reserved  for  Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an 
ideal  character,  which  through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen 
centuries  has  filled  the  hearts  of  men  with  an  impassioned 
love,  and  has  shown  itself  capable  of  acting  on  all  ages, 
nations,  temperaments  and  conditions;  has  not  only  been 
the  highest  pattern  of  v  rtue,  but  the  highest  incentive  to 
practice.  *  *  *  '"  4.mid  all  the  ^iiis  and  failings, 
amid  all  the  priestcraft,  the  persecution  and  fanaticism 
which  have  defaced  the  church,  it  has  preserved  in  the 
character  and  example  of  its  founder  an  enduring  principle 
of  regeneration."  Such  language  from  such  men  is  de- 
cisive. It  demonstrates  that  Christ  and  Christianity  stand 
or  fall  together.  That  they  are  as  inseparable  as  a  stream 
and  its  fountain,  as  essentially  one  in  character  as  the  light 
and  the  sun. 

The  Other  Side — Gibbon,  Hume,  Voltaire  A  Co.— How  the  Apostles 
of  Infidelity  Look  Under  the  Doctor's  Electric  Light. 

But  what  now  has  infidelity  to  set  forth  over  against  all 
this?  If  it  is,  as  is  claimed  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  the  sublime 
and  blessed  truth  which  is  to  banish  all  evil  and  fill  the 
world  with  purity  and  heaven,  it  will  have,  of  course,  some 
grand  examples  of  its  superiority  to  show.  There  must 
needs  be  some  among  the.  apostles  of  this  highest  and 
divinest  form  of  truth  before  whom  the  founder  of  this 
Christian  scheme  of  lies,  cruelty,  and  blood,  will  pale,  as 
the  stars  before  the  sun.  Who,  then,  are  these  grand  lumin- 
aries who  are  to  light  our  way  to  this  millennium  of 
freedom,  purity  and  peace?  There  i«,  no  lack  of  apostles; 
Voltaire,  Kousseau,  Diderot,  .  Hume,  Hobbes,  Lord 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  85 

Her'-ert,  Bolingbroke,  Gibbon,  Paine — these  are  repre- 
sentative names,  the  highest  and  best  that  infidelity  has  to 
otter. 

Gibbon  is  one  of  the  fairest,  as  he  is  one  of  the  ablest 
of  them  aii,  ;;?;:  he  has  given  us  a  biographical  account 
of  himself,  and  therein,  amid  all  the  polish  and  splendor 
of'  tae  rhetoric  of  which  he  is  such  a  master,  "  there  is  not 
a  line  or. a  word  that  suggests  reverence  for  God;  not  a 
-vord  of  regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  human  race;  nothing 
>ut  the  most  heartless  and  sordid  selfishness,  vain  glory, 
and  desire  for  admiration,  adulation  of  the  great  and  wealihy, 
contempt  for  the  poor,  and  supreme  devotedness  to  his  own 
gratification." 

Adam  Smith  calls  Hume  a  "moae.  :aan,"  a  man 
"  as  '  nearly  perfect  as  the  nature  of  human  frailty  will 
permit."  But  David  Hume  maintained  that  our  own 
pleasure  or  advantage  is  the  test  of  what  is  moral;  that 
"  the  lr  ;k  of  honesty  is  of  a  piece  with  the  lack  of  strength 
of  bodv,"  that  "  suicide  is  lawful  and  commendable,"  that 
"  female  infidelity  when  known  is  a  small  thing,  when  un- 
known," nothing;"  "  that  adultery  must  be  practiced,  if  men 
would  obtain  all  the  advantages  of  this  life;  and  that 
if  generally  practiced  it  would,  in  time,  cease  to  be  scan- 
dalous, and  if  practiced  frequently  and  secretly  would  come 
to  be  thought  no  crime  at  all." 

Lord  Herbert  taught  that  the  "  indulgence  of  lust  and 
anger  is  no  more  to  be  blamed  than  thirst  or  drowsiness." 

Mr.  Hobbes  declared,  that  "  civil  law  is  the  only  founda- 
tion of  right  and  wrong;  that  where  there  is  no  law,  every 
man's  judgment  is  the  only  standard  of  morals;  that 
every  man  has  a  right  to  all  things,  and  may  lawfully 
get  them,  if  he  can." 

Lord  Bolingbroke  held  that  self-love  is  the  only  standard 


86  MISTAKES  OF  1NGBRSOLL. 

of  morality,  that "  the  lust  of  power,  avarice,  sensuality,  may 
be  lawfully  gratified,  if  they  can  be  safely  gratified;  that 
modesty  is  inspired  by  mere  prejudice,  polygamy  a  law  of 
nature,  adultery  no  violation  of  morals,  and  the  chief  end 
of  man  is  to  gratify  the  appetite  of  the  flesh."  And  he 
kept  faith  with  his  teachings,  and  led  the  life  of  a  shame- 
less libertine. 

Yoltaire  advocated  the  unlimited  gratification  of  the 
sensual  appetites,  and  was  a  sensualist  of  the  lowest 
type.  He  was  likewise  a  blasphemer,  a  calumniator,  a 
liar,  and  a  hypocrite;  a  man  who  all  his  life  taught  and 
wrought  "  all  uncleanness  with  greediness,"  and  neverthe- 
less had  the  amazing  good  sense  to  wish  that  he  had  never  been 
born. 

Rousseau  was,  by  his  own  confessions,  a  habitual  liar, 
and  thief,  and  debauchee;  a  man  so  utterly  vile  that 
he  took  advantage  of  the  hospitality  of  friends  to  plot 
their  domestic  ruin,  a  man  so  destitute  of  natural  affection 
that  he  committed  his  base-born  children  to  the  charity  of 
the  public  that  he  might  be  spared  the  trouble  and  cost  of 
caring  for  them.  To  use  his  own  language,  "  guilty  with- 
out remorse,  he  soon  became  so  without  measure." 

As  Jp  Thomas  Paine,  the  verdict  of  history  is  too  well  set- 
tled to  be  reversed  by  Mr.  Ingersoll's  wit,  or  ridicule,  or  de- 
nials. After  all  allowance  that  can  be  made  for  misrepresent- 
ation, this  remains  unquestignably  true,  on  the  authority  of 
those  who  claimed  to  be  his  friends  and  knew  him  best,  that 
in  his  last  years  he  was  addicted  to  intemperance,  given  to 
violence  and  abusiveness,  had  disreputable  associates,  lived 
with  a. woman  who  was  not  his  wife  arid  left  to  her  what- 
ever remnant  of  fortune  he  had. 

These  now  are  the  representative  names  of  infidelity, 
the  most  saintly  apostles  it  has  to  offer:  Men,  the  very 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  87 

best  of  whom  are  characterized  either  by  vanity  or  selfish- 
ness, or  pride  or  envy,  while  some  are  given  to  deceit, 
blasphemy,  drunkenness,  sensuality.  Yet  these  are  held 
up  as  the  examples  and  illustrators  of  this  new  and  better 
gospel,  that  is  to  banish  from  the  world  the  "dogmas  of 
ignorance,  prejudice  and  power,"  "  the  poisoned  fables 
of  superstition,"  and  in  their  stead  guarantee  to  us  "free- 
dom, truth,  goodness,  heaven."  "What  say  you,  friends? 
Here  they  are — the  representatives  of  Christianity,  the 
advocates  of  the  ignorance,  bigotry,  despotism,  which  is 
declared  to  so  blight  this  world — Wesley,  "Whitefield, 
Luther,  Calvin,  Anselm,  Augustine,  John,  Paul,  Jesus 
Christ.  And  here,  over  against  them,  are  the  representa- 
tives of  infidelity,  the  advocates  of  the  doctrines  that  are  to 
bring  back  to  the  world  its  lost  paradise — Bolingbroke, 
Hobbes,  Hume,  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  Thomas  Paine.  With 
which  class  shall  we  make  surest  of  truth,  virtue,  happiness? 
With  which  will  our  wives  and  little  ones  be  in  the  safest 
keeping?  With  which  the  purity  of  the  community,  the 
security  of  the  state,  the  glory  of  the  nation^  be  most  surely 
guaranteed?  Such  questions  answer  themselves.  No 
amount  of  sophistry,  with  even  Mr.  Ingersoll's  brilliant 
rhetoric  to  help  it,  could  make  us  mistake  the  night  for 
the  day.  But  as  well  attempt  that,  as  try  to  make  us  put 
infidelity  in  the  place  of  Christianity  as  the  light  and  hope 
of  the  world. 

The  Divine  Philosophy— The  Way. 

But  let  us  advance  the  thought,  and  ask  what  are  the 
fruits  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  as  contrasted  with  those  of 
the  apostles  of  infidelity.  In  looking  for  these  fruits,  this 
remarkable  fact  appears,  that  Christ  stands  everywhere  as 
the  ideal  character  which  those  who  accept  His  doctrine  are 


88  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

pledged  to  realize  so  far  as  lies  within  their  power.  This  is 
a  peculiarity  of  Christianity.  To  study  Aristotle,  or  Pluto, 
or  Bacon,  and  accept  what  they  teach,  implies  nothing  of 
this.  I  may  receive  all  they  have  to  offer,  and  yet  corne 
into  no  sort  of  personal  relations  to  either  of  them.  I  may 
even  accept  such  teachings  as  truth,  and  yet  know  nothing 
about  their  personal  character.  But  not  so  as  to  Christ. 
I  can  not  take  up  what  He  says  about  God,  or  sin,  or 
obedience,  or  prayer,  and  set  about  carrying  out  such 
truths,  realizing  the  ends  for  which  they  were  set  forth, 
and  yet  sustain  no  personal  relations  to  Him,  have  no  de- 
,  sire  to  become  like  Him.  That  is  an  impossibility.  He 
and  His  word  are  indissolubly  wedded,  are  inseparably  one. 
To  hear  that  word,  from  whosesoever  lips,  is  the  same  as 
hearing  Him;  to  receive  it,  is  to  receive  Him,  and  to  reject 
it,  is  to  reject  Him.  The  only  possible  way  of  accepting 
His  truth,  fully  and  truly  believing  it,  is  to  accept  Him, 
fully  believe  on  and  trust  in  Him.  And  the  whole  object 
of  His  teachings  may  be  summed  up  in  the  simple  idea  of 
bringing  men  to.  be  like  Him.  Xot  to  have  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  is  to  be  none  of  His.  Not  to  covet  to  be  conformed 
to  His  image,  not  to  set  that  clearly  before  'the  mind  as  a 
constant  aim  of  life,  is  .to  be  proved  not  a  true  disciple. 
This  is  a  fundamental  principle,  a  law  of  Christianity. 

The  Truth. 

Hence,  the  power  of  Christianity  as  it  relates  to  men's 
lives.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  in  just  so  far  as  it  gets 
control  of  men's  hearts,  it  must  produce  disciples  stamped 
by  the  spirit  of  its  founder.  They  who  receive  the  truth 
of  Christ,  will  inevitably  reveal  the  likeness  of  Christ. 
Paul's  eager  counting,  whereby  he  u  counted  all  things 
but  loss,  that  he  might  win  Christ  and  be  found  in  Him," 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  89 

and  his  constant  exhortations  to  believers  to  "put  on 
Christ,"  to  be  "  conformed  to  him,"  are  the  spirit  which 
all  true  believers  feel.  In  other  words,  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
one,  universal  model  held  steadily  before  the  hearts  of  all 
who  receive  His  truth.  And  there  results  just  what  we 
should  expect — a  spiritual  transformation  is  wrought  in 
every  heart,  whereby  it  takes  on  more  and  more  of  the 
likeness  of  Christ.  Take  Peter,  for  example,  a  rough, 
hard,  very  likely  pro  fame,  fisherman,  vehement  and  im- 
petuous to  the  point  of  rashness,  and  yet  cowardly  even  to 
falsehood  and  blasphemy,  to  escape  being  reckoned  a  friend 
of  his  manacled  Master. 

But  when  this  gospel  of  Christ  has  gotten  thorough 
possession  of  him,  and  the  power  of  it  conies  to  be  felt? 
this  same  man  is  all  inflamed  with  zeal,  reveals  a  courage 
that  does  not  flinch  before  thousands  of  his  spiteful  country- 
men, and  takes  up  a  life  full  of  ridicule,  insults,  scourges, 
prisons,  and  goes  steadily  on  to  the  sure  death  that  waits, 
only  eager  to  be  more  and  more  like  Him,  the  unseen,  yet 
inspiring  Lord,  in  whom  his  faith  is  anchored.  So  Paul, 
a  scholar,  but  full  of  the  scholar;s  scorn  of  the  friend  of 
publicans;  a  Pharisee  of  the  straitest  sect,  and  hence 
stirred  with  intensest  hate  toward  all  who  forsook  the  faith 
of  their  fathers ;  so  aflame  with  wrath  that  he  stooped  to 
fill  the  place  of  an  executioner,  and  breathing  forth  threat- 
en ings  and  slaughter  went  out,  even  as  some  fierce 
inquisitor  of  Torquemada,  glad  to  redden  his  hands  in  the 
blood  of  men,  women,  children,  holding  the  despised  gospel. 

And  the  Life. 

But  this  gospel  by  and  by  gets  hold  of  him,  and  what  a 
change!  The  lion  becomes  the  lamb.  The  hate,  the  fe- 
rocity, the  blood-thirstiness  is  not  only  all  gone,  but  a 


90  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

baptism  of  heavenly  gentleness  and  love  has  come  instead. 
He  casts  aside  all  his  high  opportunities,  turns  his  back 
on  the  sure  prospects  of  affluence  and  renown,  and  taking 
to  his  heart  the  very  doctrines  he  despised,  puts  himself 
on  the  level  of  the  publicans  and  harlots  who  have  received 
the  new  truth,  and  goes  forth  to  face  an  experience  that 
for  thirty-five  years  was  one  perpetual  succession  of  indig- 
nities and  sufferings  which  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  con- 
ceive. And  does  it  with  a  sublime  patience,  nay,  rejoices 
in  his  tribulations,  and  glories  in  his  infirmities,  because 
he  thereby  realizes  more  fellowship  with  the  Christ  of  his 
hope,  more  power  to  commend  Him  unto  men. 

So  always,  this  spirit  which  animated  Peter  and  Paul 
animates  all  His  disciples.  It  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  His 
pity  for  men,  His  love,  His  desire  to  do  men  good,  His 
longing  to  clear  their  hearts  and  lives  of  everything  false, 
corrupt,  mischievous,  and  thus  ennoble  and  bless  them 
— reproducing  itself  in  all  who  receive  His  truth.  August- 
ine, John  Newton,  John  Bunyan,  thousands  of  others,  rise 
up  all  through  the  centuries  to  witness  what  fruits  of 
character  transformation  this  Gospel  everywhere  ensures. 
No  matter  of  what  race,  or  clime,  of  what  condition  in 
life,  of  what  temperament,  or  idiosyncrasies,  or  habits,  the 
one  fact  that  inevitably  marks  the  reception  of  this  scheme 
of  Christianity,  is,  that  its  disciples  take  on  the  visage  of 
their  Lord  and  Master.  And  if  it  could  only  have  its 
way,  and  men  would  ever  receive  it  into  good  and  honest 
hearts,  make  it  the  law  of  their  choosing,  loving,  doing,  it 
would  fill  the  world  with  the  likeness  of  Jesus  the  Christ. 
And  that,  I  take  it,  would  end  all  debate. 

For  our  city,  filled  with  men,  women,  children,  all  bear- 
ing His  visage,  all  filled  and  led  of  His  spirit,  all  using  His 
speech,  repeating  His  life,  would  be  what  a  city  of  love, 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  91 

T  ' 


and  purity,  and  heavenliness!  And  the  world  so  filled  would 
be,  how  plainly,  that  old  prophetic  word  come  true — the 
wolf  dwelling  with  the  lamb,  the  leopard  with  the  kid,  the 
swords  beaten  into  plowshares,  the  spears  into  pruning 
hooks,  the  tears  wiped  from  off  all  faces,  sorrow  and  sighing 
forever  fled  away,  the  light  of  everlasting  peace  on  all 
the  faces,  joy  of  everlasting  blessedness  in  all  hearts. 

And  when  to  this  there  is  added  all  the  mighty  influence 
over  men  that  comes  /rorn  such  conceptions  of  God  as 
Christianity  unfolds  and  requires  men  to  accept;  concep- 
tions of  God  as  infinitely  good,  and  holy,  and  just,  and 
suffering  men  to  set  up  and  whine  by  no  standard  but  His 
own;  conceptions  hence  which  send  men  out  to  daily  duty 
as  under  the  conscious  flash  of  omniscience,  and  in  the 
conscious  fellowship  of  perfect  purity,  unselfishness  and 
tone;  conceptions  further  of  God  as  -administers  a  moral 
government  pledged,  with  omnipotence  behind  it,  to  secure 
the  triumph  of  holiness,  and  the  retribution  of  sin,  sin  of 
act,  speech  or  thought;  when,  I  .repeat,  all  these  considera- 
tions are  brought  to  bear  upon  men's  hearts  and  lives  as 
constant  forces,  as  by  the  scheme  of  Christianity  they  are, 
who  can  doubt  what  the  quality  of  their  fruitage  in  human 
conduct  will  be?  As  well  might  we  doubt  whether  the 
sun  will  scatter  darkness  where  he  shines,  or  evoke  life 
and  beauty  from  the  seeds  embosomed  by  his  warmth. 

The  Potency  ot  Infidelity. 

But  what  has  infidelity  to  set  over  against  the.se  forces? 
"What  are  the  potent  influences  by  which  it  is  to  surpass  in 
efficiency  for  good,  the  example  and  teachings  of  Christ, 
and  His  apostles,  the  law  of  God  and  its  standards,  and 
thus  renovate  society  and  clear  the  earth  of  evil,  and  fill  'it 
with  blessings?  Why,  that  there  is  no  absolute  standard 


02  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

of  lu^ra;!?,  and  that  every  man  is  to  be  his  own  judge  oJ 
what  is  ri^'hv,  an-i  seek  what  will  minister  to  his  happiness 
or  profit.  That  we  may  gratify  our  appetites  at  pleasure. 
That  modesty  is  a  mere  prei'idice,  That  to  secure  the 
highest  good,  we  must  lie,  and  steai,  a.~.<'  ^ra°.tice  adultery. 
That  there  is,  probably,  no  God,  and  if  there  oe,  He  is 
above  taking  cognizance  of  the  petty  matters  of  this  lite; 
that  there  is  no  hereafter,  or.  if  there  be,  there  is  no  punish- 
ment for  sin;  that  God,  if  there  be  a  God,  wants  men  to 
despise  all  creeds,  all  reputations,  all  authorities  that 
cross  their  preferences,  give  themselves  to  seeking  happi- 
ness with  utter  contempt  of  rules,  and  preach 2 '.'6.  ind  hell- 
fire;  live  while  they  live,  and  let  the  future  take  care  of 
itself. 

Two  Pictures. 

These  are  the  two  systems  which  are  the  claimants  for 
our  acceptance.  Which  shall  we  take  for  the  vine,  and 
which  the  thornbush?  Which  is  the  sheep,  and  which  the 
wolf  \  Looking  at  the  two  classes  of  teachers  as  now  put 
in  contrast,  and  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  their  teachings, 
can  there  be  any  difficulty  in  making  answer?  As  little  as 
between  a  royal  palm,  on  the  one  hand,  its  branches  filled 
with  singing  birds,  groups  of  parents  and  their  children 
gathered  underneath  rejoicing  in  the  grateful  shade,  the 
bubbling  fountains,  the  fragrant  flowers,  and  the  luscious 
fruit;  and  on  the  other,  a  baleful  upas  tree,  not  a  bird  in 
its  branches,  nor  a  gushing  spring,  nor  a  flower,  nor  a  living 
thing  beneath,  but  far  and  near  the  bones  of  its  victims 
thickly  strewn  and  the  poison  of  death  tainting  all  the  air. 

And  just  as  little  doubt  can  there  be,  when  we  apply  this 
same  test  of  the  text  to  the  ages,  and  ask  for  the  fruits  of 
these  respective  systems  of  belief.  I  commend  the  inquiry 
to  you.  I  can  only  hint  at  the  testimony  of  history  and 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  93 

leave  yon  to  examine  it  at  ycyr  leisure.  Mr.  Ingersoll 
prefers  fearful  charges  against  Chrior.a^ity.  Wherever  he 
finds  a  witch  hung,  a  philosopher  put  iivy  •:  rison,  or  an 
unbeliever  put  to  death  by  those  who  wear  the  Christian 
name,  there  he  raises  the  cry  of  tyranny,  and  blood- 
thirstiness,  and  accuses  Christianity  of  pulling  the  rr  -^, 
turning  the  key,  kindling  the  lire.  I  have  no  defence  to 
make  for  such  thin?-:  --^ey  are  sad  fact?.  :L.  church 
history,  and  I  condemn  them  as  earnes^y  as  does  Mr. 


But  admitting  all  such  facts  that  can  be  hunted  out  in 
the  sweep  of  eighteen  centuries,  the  genius  of  the  Gospel, 
the  spirit  of  Christianity  is  in  no  respect  moved  to  be 
cruel  and  tyrannous  thereby.  As  well  say  that  Peter's  lifting 
his  sword  and  smiting  off  the  ear  of  the  high  priest's 
servant,  or  the  desire  of  James  and  John  to  call  down  fire 
from  heaven  on  the  unfriendly  Samaritans,  was  the  spirit 
of  Christ  and  His  Gospel. 

Christianity  Not  Responsible  for  the  Wickedness  of  Christians — 
Lawlessness  is  Not  the  Law. 

These  things  are  not  the  product  of  Christianity.  They 
are  in  no  sense  the  legitimate  fruit  of  its  teachings,  and  in 
no  t  sense  do  they  truly  represent  its  spirit.  They  are  the 
product  of  human  nature  sometimes  falsely  interpreting, 
sometimes  boldly  over-riding  the  word  of  God. 

Good  men  may  be  led  astray,  may  be  blinded,  hurried 
on  by  passion,  and  do  things  which  in  cooler  blood  and 
under  better  light  they  would  be'  the  first  to  condemn. 
Christianity  has  never  taught,  has  never  approved  such 
things.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  may  have  done  so, 
and  John  Calvin,  and  Cotton  Mather,  but  the  Bible  never. 
And  while  we  condemn  the  misdirected  zeal  of  these  good 
men,  we  ought  not  to  forget,  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  at  pains 


94  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

to,  the  extenuations  to  which  they  are  justly  entitled,  the 
fact,  for  example,  that  the  highest  authority^in  English 
law,  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  held  Cotton  Mather's  view  about 
witches  and  sentenced  them  to  death.  And  the  fact,  also, 
that  the  sentence  of  Socrates  was  not  the  act  of  John 
Calvin,  but  of  the  Swiss  magistrate,  and  their  decision  to 
burn  him  adhered  to  in  spite  of  Calvin's  earnest  appeal 
that  he  should  be  otherwise  executed.  Nor  making  the 
most  and  worst  of  such  a  mistake,  or  crime,  if  any  choose 
to  term  it  so,  ought  we  to  be  blinded  thereby  to  the  splen- 
did services  in  behalf  of  truth,  justice,  liberty,  rendered  by 
these  very  men.  There  are  spots  even  on  the  sun,butwe  forget 
about  them  in  the  wealth  and  blessings  of  his  effulgence. 

But  whatever  may  be  true  of  the  conduct  of  particular 
disciples  of  Christianity,  they  never  constitute  the  stand- 
ards by  which  its  teachings  are  to  be  tested.  Such  conduct 
throws  us  back  upon  the  question,  Is  this  what  the  Bible 
teaches  ?  That  is  our  statute  book,  and  its  express  doctrines, 
not  men's  application  of  them,  are  what  settle  its  spirit. 
If  good  men  anywhere  in  our  State,  angered  by  the  depre- 
dations of  a  gang  of  horse  theives  or  burglars,  organize  into 
a  vigilance  committee,  lay  hands  upon  a  suspected  person, 
take  him  from  bed  or  from  prison  and  hang  him  to  a  limb 
of  the  nearest  tree,  we  do  not  arraign  the  laws  of  Illinois, 
nor  the  people  of  Illinois  for  the  act.  We  charge  the 
violence,  the  lawlessness,  upon  the  particular  wrong-doers 
engaged. 

So,  here,  the  Bible  nowhere  teaches  cruelty,  tyranny, 
nowhere  encourages  putting  men  to  death  because  of  their 
beliefs,  or  even  their  shamelessness  in  sin.  God  did,  in- 
deed, in  given  instances,  Cake  the  administration  of  human 
government  into  His  own  hands,  and  sweep  the  face  of  the 
earth  clean  of  its  vile  inhabitants  by  the  deluge;  and  blot 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  95 

out  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — the  cities  of  the  plain,  with  a 
fiery  storm  of  retributive  wrath.  So  He  likewise  gave 
order  for  the  purging  of  the  land  of  promise  of  the  hordes 
of  Canaanitish  idolaters  whose  cup  of  abominations  was 
overfull.  And  for  these  things  God  stands  ready  to  make 
answer  to  all  who  arraign  Him. 

The  Great  Cloud  of  Witnesses. 

But  He  has  laid  on  men  no  injunctions  requiring  them 
to  take  His  place  and  pass  upon  their  fellows  in  judgment. 
Throughout  His  Book  one  spirit  runs.  On  the  authority 
of  the  one  great  expounder  of  it — the  sum  of  all  its  com- 
mands is — supreme  love  for  God,  unselfish  love  for  man. 
And  this  is  the  spirit  which  Christianity  has  always  taught 
and  always  exemplified  in  its  true  disciples.  Look  at  the 
proof  before  us  to-day.  Consider  these  thousands  of 
Churches,  their  pulpits  all  aiming  to  exalt  this  Bible  with 
its  law  of  love,  to  magnify  this  Christ  with  His  life  of 
devotion  to  the  welfare  of  men.  Consider  the  millions  of 
worshipers,  all  seeking  to  know  God,  all  accepting  His 
standards  of  character,  all  seeking  to  possess  the  spirit  and 
wear  the  likeness  of  His  son.  Consider  the  countless  mul- 
titudes of  children  in  Sunday  Schools,  all  filling  the  air 
with  the  praises  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  all  taught,  if  nothing 
else,  that  He  is  the  one  model  they  are  to  imitate,  and  His 
teachings  to  be  the  law  of  their  deeds,  their  words,  their 
thoughts.  Consider  these  innumerable  Christian  news- 
papers, filling  the  land  with  the  same  doctrines,  and  using 
their  prodigious  influence  to  make  them  the  supreme  faith  of 
the  nations.  Consider  the  hundreds  of  Christian  Colleges 
and  Seminaries,  training  young  men  and  young  women  for 
lives  of  beneficence  and  usefulness.  Consider  the  scores 
«nd  hundreds  of  publishing  societies,  all  animated  with 


96  MISTAKES  OF  1NOERSOLL. 

one  purpose,  and  sending  forth  their  mighty  streams  of 
tracts,  books,  Bibles,  to  fill  the  earth  with  the  story  of 
Christ  and  with  the  spirit  of  His  life.  Consider  the  count- 
less institutions  established  by  Christianity,  to  relieve  dis- 
tress, to  provide  for  the  unfortunate,  to  administer  the 
gospel  of  practical  beneficence.  Consider  the  manifold  or- 
ganizations aimed  at  spreading  the  gospel  among  all  the 
debased  races  of  the  earth  and  making  the  victims  of  super- 
sL:Son  with  its  nameless  terrors  know  the  glad  tidings  of  a 
salvation  that  puts  an  end  to  bloodshed,  and  cruelties,  and 
woes,  lills  all  hearts  with  love,  all  homes  with  peace,  all 
lives  with  blessing.  Consider  how  this  spirit  of  Christianity 
illustrated  in  all  these  diverse  lines  of  effort,  everywhere 
carries  on  its  Banner  he  doctrine  of  the  universal  brother- 
hood of  man,  recognizes  no  distinction  between  the  Negro 
the  Indian,  the  Chinaman,  the  Hottentot,  the  Cannibal^ 
but  seeks  to  make  them  all  one  in  the  fellowship  and 
liberty  >f  Jesus  Christ.  And  consider  yet  again,  that  it 
requires,  0,3  one  of  its  fundamental  principles,  a  condition 
in  fact  of  all  true  discipleship,  all  who  receive  its  truths, 
shall  pledge  themselves  to  give,  and  pray,  and  toil  without 
ceasing,  till  this  gospel  has  penetrated  every  jur^1  ~  jlimbed 
every  mountain  fortress,  hunted  •.  t  every  cavern,  every 
kraal,  every  wigwam,  every  suow-h'  t,  and  sounded  its  in- 
vitations and  promises  in  the  ears  of  all  mankind. 

Whether  all  this  signifies  anything  as  a  power  for  good 
in  the  world,  judge  ye.  Mr,  IT  gersoll  seems  to  think 
it  goes  for  nothing,  bui  against  his  opinion  I  put  that 
of  .Mr.  Lecky,  who  in  his  history  of  European  morals,  says 
this — he  is  speaking  of  the  contrast  between  the  influence 
of  Christianity  and  paganism — "  It  was  reserved  for 
Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal  character 
which  through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries  has 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  UKTLY.  87 

been  not  only  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue,  but  the  strong- 
est incentive  to  its  practice,  and  lias  exercised  so  deep  an 
influence  that  it  may  be  truly  said  to  have  done  more  to 
regenerate  and  to  soften  mankind  than  all  the  disquisitions 
of  philosophers  and  all  the  exhortations  of  mortals." 

The  Fruits  of  Infidelity — The  Blackest  Pag-e  in  Human  History 
— The  French  Revolution. 

But  when  was  ever  infidelity  so  engaged?  Where  are 
the  organizations  it  has  instituted,  the  missionaries  it  has 
sent  forth,  to  fill  the  world  with  the  blessings  of  faith, 
freedom,  virtue?  But  I  forget.  Infidelity  has  such  a 
record  of  organized  endeavor  to  regenerate  mankind. 
Turn  to  the  history  of  the  French  Revolution  and.  read  it 
there.  The  leaders  of  that  revolution,  as  you  know,  were 
the  very  class  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  glorifies:  the  disciples 
of  Diderot,  Voltaire,  Rousseau.  They  were  avowed  atheists 
or  infidels,  and  Thomas  Paine  was  one  of  the  number,  sat 
in  their  midst,  participated  in  their  discussions,  aided  in 
drawing  up  the  constitution  they  enacted.  What  that 
convention  said  and  did  the  world  knows  and  will  never 
forget. 

They  did  what  Mr.  Ingersoll  would  be  glad  to  have  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  do.  They  abolished 
Christianity  by  vote.  They  declared  there  was  no  God, 
forbade  the  public  instructors  to  utter  His  name  to 
their  children.  They  struck  the  Sabbath  oui  of 
the  calendar  and  made  the  week  consist  of  ten  days  instead 
of  seven.  They  wrote  over  the  gates  of  the  cemeteries, 

«/  o 

"  Death  is  an  eternal  sleep."  They  tore  down  the  bells 
from  the  church  spires  and  cast  them  into  cannons.  They 
stripped  the  churches  of  everything  used  in  worship,  and 
•made  bonfires  in  the  streets,  and  then  instituted  the  rights 
€>/  the  old  pagan  religions,  where  the  altars  had  stood. 


V8  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Ingersollism  Unveiled. 

Not  content  with  this,  Chaumette,  one  of  the  leaders  of 
the  convention,  appeared  one  day  before  that  body,  leading 
a  noted  courtesan  with  a  troop  of  her  associates.  Ad- 
vancing to  the  president,  he  raised  her  veil,  and  ex- 
claimed : 

"Mortals!  recognize  no  other  divinity  than  Reason,  of 
which  I  present  to  you  the  loveliest  and  purest  Personifica- 
tion." 

Whereupon  the  president  of  the  convention  bowed  and 
professed  to  render  devout  adoration.  And  a  few  days 
later  the  same  scene  was  re-enacted  in  the  cathedral  of  Notre 
Dame,  with  increased  profanations  and  more  outrageous 
orgies,  and  was  declared  to  be  the  public  inauguration  of 
the  new  religion  of  the  commune.  And  like  desecrations 
and  blasphemies  throughout  all  France  took  the  place  of 
the  old  worship. 

Worse  than  this,  all  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong  were 
confounded.  The  grossest  debauchery  was  inaugurated, 
the  wildest  excesses  prevailed  and  were  gloried  in.  Con- 
tempt for  religion  and  for  decency  became  the  test  of 
attachment  to  the  government.  The  grosser  the  infractions 
of  morals,  the  greater  the  so-called  victory  over  prejudice, 
the  higher  the  proof  of  loyalty  to  the  state.  To  accuse 
one's  father  was  the  best  proof  of  citizenship;  to  neglect 
it  was  denounced  as  a  crime,  and  was  punishable  with  death. 
Wives  were  bayoneted  for  the  faith  of  their  husbands,  and 
husbands  for  that  of  their  wives. 

One  of  the  chief  tools  of  the  commune,  Carrier,  ruling 
at  Nantes,  declared  that  the  "  intention  of  the  Convention 
was  to  depopulate  and  burn  the  country,"  and  he  was  as 
good  as  his  word. 

He  gathered  those  suspected    of  disloyalty  in  flocks. 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  99 

He  shut  tip  1,500  women  and  children  in  one  prison  with- 
out beds,  without  straw,  without  fire  or  covering,  and  kept 
them  for  two  days  without  food.  The  only  escape  was  for 
men  to  surrender  their  fortunes,  and  women  their  virtue. 

The  Penumbra  of  Hell. 

He  contrived  ships  with  slides  in  their  hulls  below  the 
water  line,  loaded  these  with  his  prisoners  under  pretext 
of  transporting  them  elsewhere,  and  when  the  vessels 
were  in  the  middle  of  the  Loire,  ordered  the  valves  opened 
and  the  victims  plunged  into  the  water,  while  he,  sur- 
rounded by  a  troop  of  prostitutes,  looked  on  and  gloated 
over  the  scene. 

And  this  is  only  a  type  of  what  occurred  elsewhere. 
Proscription  followed  proscription,  tragedy  followed  trag- 
edy, till  the  whole  country  was  one  hugh  field  of  rapine 
and  of  blood. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  admits  that  17,000  perished  in  the  City  of 
Paris  during  this  combined  reign  of  infidelity  and  terror; 


3,000,000  lives  were  the  costly  price  of  establishing  the 
new  religion. 

There  is  no  disputing  these  facts,  nor  the  reasons  that 
underlay  them.  This  whole  terrific  record — and  history 
knows  none  that  is  darker  or  more  damning — was  the  di- 
rect and  legitimate  fruit  of  the  doctrines  which  Mr.  Inger- 
soll lauds  as  the  sublime  truth  "  that  is  to  fill  the  world 
with  peace!" 

The  men  who  originated  and  carried  out  this  combined 
scheme  of  government  and  religion,  were  the  men  with 
whom  Thomas  Paine  sat,  and  voted,  and  was  in  every  way 
identified.  His  faith  was  their  faith.  And  at  his  door 
equally  with  theirs  does  this  series  of  the  most  fiendish 


100  MISTAKES  OP  INQER80LL. 

outrages  that  ever  disgraced  a  people  pretending  to  be  civ- 
ilized cry  for  vengeance. 

The  Final  Picture — Ingersollism,  An  Endless  Night  of  Tears. 

And  what  infidelity  was  then,  it  is  now.  And  what  it 
did  then,  so  far  as  its  assaults  upon  religion  were  concerned, 
and  its  overturning  of  civil  order,  it  would  do  to-day,  if  it 
had  the  power. 

If  Mr.  Ingersoll  could  have  his  way,  he  would  abolish 
God,  and  the  church,  and  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and  the 
Bible,  and  everything  pertaining  thereto.  He  would  ban- 
ish Christian  newspaper?  and  colleges,  and  benevolent 
societies;  proscribe  all  oaths  in  courts  of  justice;  expunge 
the  name  of  God  from  all  statute  books,  the  name  of 
Christ  from  all  calendars  and  text-books;  annihilate  all 
moral  standards;  would,  in  a  word,  not  only  quench  all 
prayer  and  praise  and  honoring  of  God,  but  sweep  the 
world  clear  of  everything  that  bears  the  name  or  shows 
the  spirit  of  Christianity. 

And  what  would  he  give  us  for  all  this  \  For  our  Bible, 
the  Age  of  Reason.  For  the  Sabbath,  the  beer-garden  and 
the  theatre.  For  worship,  the  rites  of  paganism  or  the 
adoration  of  an  apotheosized  courtesan.  For  the  standards 
of  God's  law,  that  which  should  seem  right  in  every  man's 
eyes.  For  the  law-making  power,  the  blasphemous  horde 
of  the  French  commune.  For  security,  the  guillotine  drip- 
ping with  blood  at  every  street-corner.  For  truth,  candor, 
love,  temperance,  purity — deceit,  treachery,  hate,  drunken- 
ness, sensuality,  with  all  their  crimes  and  shames.  In  a 
word,  for  this  is  the  outcome  of  all  such  purpose,  if  the 
infidelity  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  glorifies  could  have  its  way, 
it  would  strike  the  sun  from  the  sky  of  our  Christian  civ- 
ilization, and  give  us  instead  the  lurid  night  of  the  reign 


DR.  GOODWIN'S  REPLY.  101 

of  terror,  only  it  would  make  it  a  night  with  no  Napoleon 
or  Chateaubriand  to  break  the  gloom — a  night  of  tears,  and 
blood  and  woe  without  an  end!  Shall  we  open  our  arms 
to  welcome  this  new  gospel? 

Tallyrand's  Advice  to  Ingersoll  and  His  Friends. 

During  this  period  of  the  history  of  France,  one  of  the 
five  Directors  in  whose  hands  the  government  was  lodged, 
asked  Tallyrand  what  he  thought  of  Theophilanthropism, 
the  name  given  the  new  religion.  "  I  have  but  a  single 
observation  to  make,"  was  his  reply.  "Jesus  Christ,  to 
found  His  religion,  suffered  Himself  to  be  crucified,  and 
He  rose  again.  You  should  try  and  do  as  much." 

Friends,  when  this  new  gospel  of  infidelity  shall  furnish 
us  such  proofs  of  its  right  to  claim  our  acceptance,  it  will 
be  entitled  to  a  hearing.  Until  then  let  us  cling  to  the 
teachings  of  Him  whose  words  and  deeds  alike  attest  Him 
the  light  and  life  of  the  world. 


102  MISTAKES  OF  INQE&SOLL. 


PERE  HYACINTHE'S  REPLY. 

[Nineteenth  Century.] 


Ingersollism  in  Paris— The  Metaphysics  of  Paganism — Eloquent 
Conclusion  of  the  Great  Philosopher. 

The  religious  question,  whatever  may  be  said  or  done, 
is  the  reigning  question  of  our  epoch.  As  regards  France 
and  the  Republic  it  is  more  and  more  evident  to  any  one 
who  has  the  slighest  perspicacity  that  the  question  they 
have  to  solve  under  penalty  of  death — and  of  a  death 
not  far  distant — is  precisely  the  religious  question. 

As  we  ^approach  and  touch  the  actualities  of  our  own 
time,  I  feel  the  lines  of  justice  stronger  and  straighter. 
But  within  these  lines  and  with  the  actualities  of  to-day 
we  breathe,  thank  heaven,  the  beneficent  atmosphere  of 
liberty. 

I  shall  therefore  speak  my  mind  freely,  recounting  what 
I  see  in  the  region  of  free-thought,  as  it  is  called.  But 
the  word  is  badly  chosen. 

We  Christians  also,  we  desire  and  we  are  bound  to  think 
freely.  We  are  between  two  parties — I  should  say  armies 
— that  of  Rationalism  and  that  of  Ultramontanism.  I 
respect  them  both.  I  respect  the  Roman  Catholics,  be- 
cause they  are  especially  my  brethren ;  I  shared  for  a  long 
time  their  delusions,  and  I  still  share  their  faith,  as  expressed 
in  the  Nicene  Creed.  I  am  and  intend  to  remain  a  Catho- 
lic. I  also  respect  the  free-thinkers.  I  know  how  sincere 
a  great  number  of  them  are,  and  moreover  I  feel  myself 
moved  by  a  painful  and  respectful  sympathy  for  the  suifer- 
ings  which  it  has  been  my  lot  to  discover  in  many  of  their 


PERE  HYAOINTHE'S  REPLY.  103 

consciences.  And  far  be  it  from  me  to  willingly  wound — I 
will  not  say  any  conscience — hut  any  person,  and,  if  I  un- 
wittingly do  so,  I  retract  beforehand. 

I  will  not  say  that  in  the  interval  of  these  sixteen 
hundred  years  Christianity  has  perished:  on  the  contrary, 
I  think  that  in  more  than  one  sense  it  has  more  life  than 
ever  in  the  world,  and  that,  too,  in  Paris.  Twice  in  the 
history  cf  these  centuries  the  see  of  St.  Denis  has  abdi- 
cated, and  twice  it  has  abdicated  before  two  rival  paganisms, 
mortal  enemies  each  of  the  other,  and  yet  leagued  together 
against  the  Gospel — against  the  pure  and  entire  Gospel. 

Let  us  begin  by  speaking  of  the  first  of  these  two 
paganisms — of  that  which  I  will  call  the  intellectual 
paganism,  or  rather  the  irreligious,  I  should  almost  say 
the  impious,  paganism — for  it  is  that  which  suppresses 
religion.  The  other  paganism  is  the  superstitious  pagan- 
ism, which  distorts  religion.  In  speaking  of  the  first  of 
these  paganisms — first  chronologically,  but  not  in  power — 
I  can  repeat  what  we  have  learned  from  Leibnitz,  and  what 
experience  has  confirmed,  that  each  new  affirmation  of 
superstition  or  fanaticism  is  met  by  a  negation  of  in- 
credulity and  irreligion,  and  that  each  new  manifestation 
of  incredulity  encounters  a  new  affirmation  of  super- 
stition. Extremes  meet — nay,  they  do  more — they  unite 
and  progagate;  and  this  is  precisely  the  tragic,  the  for- 
midable aspect  of  the  situation. 

To  deal  with  the  paganism  of  incredulity,  of  irreligion, 
we  must  go  back  to  the  troubled  dawn  of  our  French 
Revolution. 

It  was  before  an  assembly  which  had  its  days  of  glory, 
but  which,  at  the  time  I  am  speaking  of,  was  not  worthy 
of  France — the  National  Convention.  At  its  bar  appeared 
the  successor  of  St.  Denis,  he  who,  invested  with  the 


1C4  MISTAKES  OF  INGEKSOLL. 

episcopal  tiara,  occupied  the  see  of  Paris — the  constitu- 
tional bishop,  Gobel.  On  his  brow,  which  had  borne  the 
mitre  (mysterious  symbol  of  the  august  and  pacific  power 
which  comes  from  Jesus  Christ),  he  had  placed  the  red 
Phrygian  cap — emblem  of  the  bloody  demagogy.  He  ap- 
peared before  the  assembly  without  having  been  called, 
and,  in  base,  despicable  language  said:  i;T:^  -.vill  of  the 
people  has  always  been  my  first  thought,  and  my  first  duty 
is  to  obey  it."  But  the  cowardly  apostate  confounded  the 
respect  of  the  people  with  the  fear  of  the  scaffold,  as  he 
confounded  the  respect  of  God  with  the  terror  of  hell. 

Tormented  by  day  by  the  vision  of  the  guillotine,  tortured 
at  night  by  infernal  visions,  actuated  by  the  basest 
cowardice,  and  possessing  no  religion,  neither  that  of  the 
Stoics  nor  that  of  Christians,  he  had  come  there,  sur- 
rounded by  the  meanest  of  his  priests,  to  abjure  at  one 
and  the  same  time  his  Christian  faith  and  his  episcopacy. 
"Citizens,"  said  the  president  of  the  Convention  to  them, 
"in  laying  on  tho  altar  of  the  Republic  these  Gothic 
baubles,  you  have  deserved  well  of  the  nation." 

Frantic  applause  burst  forth  from  most  of  the  benches, 
while  Robespierre,  isolated  in  his  disgust,  meditated  the 
sentence  which  a  few  days  later  was  to  send  Gobel  to  wash 
out,  if  he  could,  his  shame  by  the  guillotine. 

This  was  the  first  abdication  of  the  pulpit  of  the  see  of 
St.  Denis. 

This  abdication  was  not  made,  however,  into  the  hands 
of  paganism:  the  Convention  was  not  pagan,  it  was  deist. 
Robespierre  proclaimed  it  in  language  which  was  per- 
haps strange  and  ridiculous,  but  which  has  also  its  sub- 
lime aspect — he  proclaimed  the  official  belief  of  the  French 
people  in  the  Supreme  Being  and  in  the  immortality  of 
the  soul.  Would  that  all  the  Republicans  of  to-day 
preserved  the  orthodoxy  of  the  National  Convention! 


PERE  HYACINTUE'8  REPLY.  105 

The  Convention  was  deist,  but  it  was  already  outstripped 
by  atheism.  Robespierre  was  classed  among  the  cham- 
pions of  the  old  regime.  The  Supreme  Being  was  a  myth 
to  be  banished  with  Jehovah  and  Jesus.  The  Commune 
of  Paris  was  in  the  van  of  progress,  and  the  procurator — 
ringleader — of  that  Commune,  Chaumette,  stood  in  front  of 
the  altar  of  Notre  Dame  to  inaugurate  the  most  disgrace- 
ful of  all  paganisms — the  religion  of  atheism. 

On  the  altar  of  Jesus  stood  a  courtesan;  she  personified 
in  her  own  barren  and  corrupting  flesh  the  profaned  reason  of 
man.  A  shameless  woman,  a  reason  profaned — this  was 
the  goddess  of  Reason ;  and  to  her  were  offered  adorations 
which  we  are  willing  to  forget  on  the  condition  that  we 
are  not  forced  to  remember  them. 

It  was,  therefore,  a  new  paganism  which  arose;  but,  to  the 
glory  of  the  French  people,  I  can  say  that  the  goddess  of 
Reason  threw  off  her  vile  trappings  and  cleansed  herself 
of  the  mire  into  which  she  had  fallen.  And,  yet,  alas!  to 
be  faithful  to  truth,  I  am  forced  to  say  that  the  goddess  of 
Reason  is  still  standing  erect,  and  that  her  throne  is 
neither  in  Berlin  nor  London — at  Berlin,  in  the  German 
universities,  where  there  are  no  doubt  powerful  lucubra- 
tions of  rationalism  and  irreligion;  in  England,  where 
flourishes  to-day  the  most  radically  skeptical  school  in  the 
world — but  the  irradiating  and  powerful  focus  is  Paris. 

JSTot  only  is  the  goddess  Reason  still  living  in  our  midst, 
and  not  only  are  we  living  witnesses,  but  we  are  living 
actors  in  a  veritable  paganism. 

Paganism  is  vast — it  stretches  from  the  African  fetish- 
ism to  the  pantheism  of  the  Brahmins  and  the  atheism  of 
the  Buddhists,  for  atheism  itself  has  its  religion.  There 
are  those  to  be  found  in  our  day  who  imagine  that  religion 
can  be  uprooted  from  the  human  soil  and  a  great  people 


106  MISTAKES  OF  1NGMR80LL. 

made  to  live  without  adoring.  But  religion  is  a  thing  so 
great,  so  subtle,  so  deep-roote*d  in  man,  that  even  when  the 
very  idea  of  God  has  disappeared,  as  in  Buddhism  (which 
contemporaneous  savants  affirm,  although  I  myself  doubt 
it),  there  still  remains  a  religion,  the  most  powerful  and 
sometimes  the  most  fanatic. 

Thus,  from  the  fetishism  of  the  Africans  to  the  atheism 
of  the  Buddhists  and  the  pantheism  of  the  Brahmins,  there 
are  all  the  degrees  and  shades  of  polytheism.  But  these 
numerous  forms,  opposed  to  one  another,  all  enter  into  the 
great  sphere  of  paganism.  We  must  not,  however,  con- 
found paganism  with  any  of  these  forms,  and  if  we  wish  to 
obtain  an  exact  definition,  we  must  go  to  the  essence  of  it. 
What,  then,  is  the  essence  of  paganism  or  idolatry?  Bossuet 
has  told  us  in  a  single  word  :  everything  is  God  exc&pt  God 
Himself.  Paganism  consists  essentially  in  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  relative  for  the  absolute,  of  the  finite  for  the 
infinite,  of  man  for  God.  I  say  "  man  "  rather  than  nature, 
for  in  modern  times  we  do  not  adore  nature,  especially  ex- 
terior nature,  for  we  know  it  better  than  our  ancestors;  we 
have  analyzed  it  by  our  science,  we  have  conquered  it  by 
our  industry;  we  simply  make  it  our  slave.  But  when  God 
has  disappeared — when  the  Living-Infinite  and  the  Per- 
sonal Absolute  have  gone — when,  as  Hamilton  says,  we 
have  succeeded  in  exorcising  the  spectre  of  the  absolute, 
we  find  ourselves  before  another  spectre-^-man:  man  be- 
holding only  himself,  man  adoring  himself,  sometimes  with 
the  calculating  designs  of  a  cold  egotism,  sometimes  with 
the  sudden  passions  of  voluptuousness,  ambition,  or  pride; 
but  it  is  always  man  that  adores  himself.  If  he  adores 
himself  in  his  individual  person,  it  is  egotism ;  if  he  adores 
himself  in  the  person  of  some  or  all  of  his  kind,  it  is  what 
is  called  to-day,  in  rather  barbarous  French,  Valtruisme 


PERE  HTACINTHE'S  REPLY.          107 

(other-selfism) ;  or  when,  finally,  withdrawing  himself  from 
individuals  or  from  his  own  person,  he  adores  himself  under 
the  ideal  of  humanity,  and  when  man  adores  himself  in 
humanity,  as  Auguste  Comte,  a  man  of  great  talent,  almost 
of  genius,  said,  "in  the  continuity  of  convergent  beings," 
it  is  still  man  adoring  himself.  And,  I  would  ask,  did  not 
Auguste  Oomte  himself,  while  summing  up  and  crowning 
a  scientific  life  by  mystic  conceptions,  pass  from  pure  phi- 
losophy to  religion,  and  inaugurate  in  Paris,  at  No.  10  Rue 
Monsieur  le  Prince — it  still  exists — what  he  called  "  the 
sanctuary  of  the  religion  of  humanity,"  of  which  he  was 
the  first  high-priest,  and  for  which  lie  created  a  calendar 
and  sacraments?  These  are  living  facts  of  to-day. 
.  The  two  schools  which  nowadays  hold  sway  over  the 
scientific  realm,  and  would  fain  attract  within  their  grasp 
all  methods  of  teaching,  and  encroach  on  private  and  social 
life,  are  the  sciences  of  Materialise  and  Positivism. 

But  I  will  not  hesitate  to  tell  these  schools  that  they,  in 
fact,  are  the  embodiment  of  paganism  in  the  sense  of  the 
substitution  of  man  for  God.  It  is  true  that  it  is  a  very 
pure  paganism,  for  indeed  there  could  be  no  other  within 
a  Christian  society.  Jesus  Christ  has  spoken  of  worship 
in  spirit  and  in  .truth.  I  say  that  it  is  idolatry  in  spirit 
and  in  truth.  It  is  the  creature  usurping  the  place  of  the 
Creator;  the  constant  substitution  of  the  finite  for  the 
infinite,  of  man  for  the  personal  and  living  God.  That  is 
paganism;  and  we  find  it  in  the  three  orders  of  human 
life — knowledge,  ethics,  and  society. 

In  the  order  of  knowledge,  it  is  reason  serving  itself 
not  only  from  Christian  revelation — that  would  be  already 
too  much,  for  human  reason  has  need  of  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ — but  extinguishing  on  the  very  heights  it 
occupies  the  effulgent  rays  of  dawn,  the  breath  of  the 


108  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

early  day  about  to  break.  It  is  reason  forgetting  all  meta- 
physics, as  well  as  all  religion;  restraining,  crippling  it- 
self in  the  order  of  outer  and  material  observation,  and  in 
the  order  of  inner  and  psychological  observation. 

"  There  is  but  nothingness  beyond  observation  and  facts," 
says  the  Materialist;  nothing  but  hypothesis,  says  the  Pos- 
itivist.  But  this  is  the  mutilated  reason  of  man,  the 
science  of  observation  set  in  the  place  of  natural  sense, 
of  the  rational  intuition  of  things  spiritual  and  eternal. 
Such  is  the  first  characteristic  of  paganism. 

If  we  enter  into  conscience,  we  find  an  absence  of  the 
absolute  elements,  because  God  is  no  longer  there:  God  is 
nothing,  or  at  least  an  hypothesis.  The  human  conscience, 
bereft  of  its  absolute  elements,  is  necessarily  bereft  of  all 
divine  elements.  iWliat  then  remains?  Three  laws,  from 
which  a  man  may  chose  according  to  his  taste  or  fancy, 
according  as  his  mind  is  of  an  austere  or  depraved  charac- 
ter— the  law  of  conscience,  but  of  a  conscience  wholly 
relative  and  contingent,  a  conscience  based  on  self,  which 
is  but  self  communing  with  self  in  its  own  dignity;  the 
law  of  duty,  a  beautiful  law,  inasmuch  as  it  sometimes 
gives  rise  to  real  virtues,  admirable  self-sacrifice  in  incon- 
sistent men,  who  are  better  than  their  systems. 

And  yet  this  is  but  a  relative,  contingent  conscience, 
devoid  of  all  value  but  that  of  human  self.  By  the  side 
of  the  law  of  conscience  there  is  the  law  of  the  heart, 
with  its  fervid  enthusiasm,  its  beautiful  ideal  of  the  imagi- 
nation as  well  as  of  sentiment.  Need  I  add  that  under- 
neath conscience  and  heart  lies  what  has  been  called  "  the 
law  of  physical  members,"  as  expounded  by  that  great 
Saint-Simonian  school  which  taught  the  rehabilitation  of 
the  flesh. 

If  conscience  be  not  an  element  superior  to  man,  and 


PERE  HYACINTUE'S  REPLY.  109 

law  not  a  light  existing  within  him,  but  coming  to  him 
from  above,  it  is  left  to  man  to  choose,  to  calculate  in  his 
wisdom  the  measure  of  his  conscience  which  bids  him 
sacrifice  himself,  the  measure  of  his  heart  which  bids  him 
love,  and  the  measure  of  his  flesh  which  counsels  his 
enjoyment.  That  is  logic.  Man  may  be  better  than  logic, 
but  nevertheless  this  is  logic.  It  is  man,  principle  and 
end  of  morality,  as  it  is  man,  the  principle  and  end  of 
conscience. 

In  the  social  order  we  have  democracy,  a  most  noble 
form,  and  perhaps  the  definitive  form  of  human  societies. 
Let  us  use  no  ambiguities  here.  The  democracy  which  I 
admit  is  that  of  Jean-Jacques  Rousseau,  the  initiator  of 
contemporary  democracy ;  and  though  often  a  false  prophet, 
he  was  true  and  sublime  when  he  qualified  democracy  as 
"  God's  people  governing  itself,"  i.e.  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  acting  only  as  agent  of  the  superior  sovereignty  of 
reason  and  justice.  But  the  democracy  of  human  affairs 
which  ignores  God  and  His  divine  law  in  all  things  is  a 
democracy  which  renders  nugatory  all  laws  it  can  make 
itself,  arid  powerless  all  human  action. 

If  the  value  of  laws,  of  political  constitutions,  of  the 
constitution  of  society  itself — if  the  value  of  property  and 
of  the  family  tie  are  not  founded  on  absolute  reason,  but 
are  merely  the  arbitrary  result  of  the  popular  will; — if 
man,  the  majority  of  the  people — for  it  is  a  majority, 
never  a  whole  people,  that  speaks — declares  that  such  and 
such  a  law  is  a  true  or  just  one  because  it  has  so  willed  it, 
and  such  and  such  a  constitution  wrong  or  bad  because  it 
will  have  no  more  of  it — I  maintain  that  such  a  democracy 
is  but  tyranny  under  a  new  form.  It  matters  little  to  me 
that  I  am  governed  by  one  man  or  millions  of  men. 

As  a  man  I  owe   obedience  direct  only  to  reason  and 


110  MISTAKES  OF  INGEHSOLL. 

divine  justice,  indirectly  to  the  social  agent  established  in 
the  name  of  this  reason  and  of  this  justice.  In  a  tradi- 
tionally raonarchial  society  this  agent  is  the  prince,  and  I 
acknowledge  the  monarch.  But,  I  repeat,  behind  and 
above  the  monarch  I  bow  only  to  divine  order  and 
supreme  law,  whose  agent  he,  the  king  or  the  emperor,  is 
held  to  be. 

In  a  democratic  society  it  is  the  people — I  should  say 
the  majority  of  the  people,  since  we  must  be  arraigned 
before  that  law  of  numbers  which  is  becoming  the  const^ 
tuted  agent  of  justice  and  law.  I  accept  willingly  the 
majority  of  the  people;  but  that  majority  can  claim  rnj 
allegiance  only  so  long  as  it  shall  represent  the  principle 
of  a  higher  order,  the  principle  of  absolute  justice — God. 
Thus,  in  the  social  as  well  as  in  the  moral  and  intellectual 
order,  it  is  every  man  arraigned  before  his  fellow-man.  In 
other  words,  it  is  paganism. 

What  we  must  do,  and  I  continue  to  appeal  'co  my  dear 
fellow-citizens,  my  dear  co-religionists — fo^,  after  all,  we 
are  all  Christians,  and  when  we  go  to  tae  bottom  of  our 
souls  we  all  feel  Christianity  there — wo  must,  amid  all 
these  errors,  raise  aloft  the  banner  of  the  Gospel.  Instead 
of  isolating  ourselves,  instead  of  £ring  on  one  another  in 
this  civil  war,  in  this  criminal  and  mad  war,  we  must 
unite  together.  We  must  labor  in  that  work  of  which 
Mr.  Gladstone,  one  of  thoso  statesmen  who  do  not  blush 
to  be  real  Christians,  remarked  to  me  one  day  that  the 
greatest  idea  of  this  century  was  Catholic  reform  and  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  Above  Protestanism  and  its  divi- 
sions, above  Roman  Catholicism  and  its  oppression,  above 
Greek  Catholicism  and  its  somnolence  or  isolation,  let  us 
endeavor  to  arouse  a  great  organic  and  living  Christianity, 
a  vast  superior  and  integral  Catholicism,  a  free  and  strong 
federation  of  churches  and  consciences. 


DYING  WORDS.  Ill 


DYISTG  WORDS. 


"  Bless  you,  there  is  no  river  here." — Bishop  Haven. 

"  The  best  of  all  is,  God  is  with  us.  Farewell  " — John 
Wesley. 

"  O,  why  not  now?  But  Thy  will  be  done;  come,  Lord 
Jesus." — St.  Augustine. 

"  Now  I  go  into  Paradise." — Jacob  Bcehmer. 

"  Welcome  joy.'; — John  Elliot. 

"What  shall  I  say?  Christ  is  altogether  lovely;  His 
glorious  angels  are  come  for  me." — John  Bailey. 

"  See  in  what  peace  a  Christian  can  die." — Joseph 
Addison. 

"Glory!  glory!  glory!  Hallelujah, 'Jesus  reigns!" — 
Jesse  Lee. 

"  I  am  not  disappointed." — Bishop  Janes. 

"  Talk  to  me  of  Jesus." — Adam  Nightingale. 

"  Such  singing!     Do  you  not  hear  it? " — John  Carey. 

"  Rest,  perfect  rest." — Thomas  Burrows. 

"  All  is  light."—  Theophilus  Pugh. 

"  Tell  my  brethren  I  arn  on  the  rock.  There  is  no  other 
foundation." — Joseph  Hollis. 

"  O  God  of  angels  and  powers,  and  of  all  creatures,  and 
of  all  the  just  that  live  in  Thy  sight;  blessed  be  Thou  who 
hast  made  me  worthy  to  see  this  day  and  hour ;  Thou  hast 
made  me  a  partaker  among  the  holy  martyrs.  O  Lord,  I 
adore  Thee  for  all  thy  mercies.  I  bless  Thee  that  1  glorify 
Thee  through  Thy  only-begotten  Son,  the  eternal  High 
Priest,  Jesus  Christ." — Poly  carp,  at  the  Stake. 


112  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

"I  am  not  afraid  to  look  death  in  the  face.  I  can  say, 
'  Death,  where  is  thy  sting? ' '  — John  Dodd. 

"  If  I  had  strength  to  hold  a  pen,  I  would  write  how 
easy  and  delightful  it  is  to  die." —  Win.  Hunter. 

"If  this  be  dying,  it  is  the  easiest  thing  imaginable." — 
Lady  Glenorchy. 

"  I  welcome  death,  and  calmly  pass  away." — Arthur 
Murphy. 

"  I  am  now  in  a  state  in  which  nothing  in  this  world 
can  disturb  me  more.  I  am  comfortably  coming  to  my 
end." — Collingwood. 

"  I  did  not  suppose  it  was  so  sweet  to  die." — Saurez. 
the  Spanish  theologian. 

"  Let  me  die  in  the  sounds  of  delicate  music." — Mira- 
beau. 

"Kiss. me,  Hardy.  I  thank  God  I  have  done  my  duty." 
— Lord  Nelson. 

"  I  feel  well;  I  never  felt  more  so  in  my  life;  I  am  in- 
expressibly happy." — David  Daily. 

"Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  the  whole  earth  shall  !><• 
filled  with  His  glory." — Jesse  Appleton. 

"  After  glories  that  God  has  manifested  to  my  soul,  all 
is  light,  light,  light — the  brightness^!'  His  own  glory.  O 
come,  Lord  Jesus,  come;  come  quickly."  —  Toplofty-, 
author  of  "Rock  of  Ages."1" 

"  See  how  calm  a  Christian  can  die!  " — Addison. 

"  Blessed  be  God,  all  is  well." — Darracott. 

"Never  better;  soon  home:  only  two  steps  more,  and  I 
shall  reach  my  Father's  home." — Dr.  Rowland  Taylor. 

"  Glory  to  God,  I  see  heaven  open  before  me." — Benja- 
min Abbott. 


DYING  WORDS.  113 

"I  have  done  with  darkness  forever." — Thomas  Scott. 

"  Children,  as  soon  as  I  am  released,  sing  a  psalm  of 
praise  to  God." — Mrs.  Susanna  Wesley. 

"  Brethren,  sing  and  pray;  eternity  dawns." — Dr.  Eddy. 

"  I  am  going  up,  up,  up." — R.  V. Lawrence. 

"  I  have  got  the  victory,  and  Christ  is  holding  out  both 
hands  to  embrace  me." — Rutherford. 

"  Glory!  glory!  glory!  Hallelujah!  Jesus  reigns." — Jesse 
Lee. 

"  Let  him  fear  death  who  must  pass  from  this  death  to 
the  second  death." — Cyprian 

"Now  I  go  into  paradise." — Rev.  Jacob  Ballmer. 

"  I  believe,  I  believe.  I  am  almost  well.  Lord  teach 
us  how  to  die." — Richard  Baxter 

"We  shall  meet  ere  long  to  sing  the  new  song,  and  re- 
main happy  forever  in  a  world  without  end." — John  Bun- 
yan. 

"  Live  in  Christ,  live  in  Christ,  and  the  flesh  need  not 
fear.death." — John  Know. 

"  Jesus,  Jesus,  I  die,  but  Thou  livest." — Otterbein. 

"  The  greatest  conflict  is  over;  all  is  done.  To  live  is 
Christ;  but  to  die  is  gain." — J.  Harvey. 

"  My  son,  you  have  taken  away  my  religion ;  now  tell 
me  something  to  comfort  me." — The  Message  of  Humds 
Mother,  on  her  death-led,  to  her  son. 

"  "Welcome  this  chain  for  Christ's  sake." — John  Huss, 
at  the  Stake. 

"  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the 
Holy  Ghost."— Bede. 

"  Into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit.  Thou  hast  re- 
deemed me,  O  Lord  God  of  truth." — Martin  Luther. 


114  MISTAKES  OF  1NOERSOLL. 

"  I  want  nothing;  I  am  looking  for  nothing  but  heaven." 
— Melanethon. 

"Now  let  Thj  servant  depart  in  peace.  Suffer  me  to 
come  to  thee.  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit." — Bishop 
Jewell. 

"  I  am  found  in  Him  who  loved  me  and  gave  Himself 
for  me.  I  am  swallowed  up  in  God." — Dr.  Goodwin, 
(Puritan  Divine). 

"  Glory  to  Thee,  O  God"— Gordon  Hall. 

"  The  Celestial  City  is  now  full  in  my  view." — Payson. 


"  I  am  taking  a  fearful  leap  into  the  dark." — Hobbs. 

"I  long  to  die,  that  I  may  be  in  the  place  of  perdition^ 
that  I  may  know  the  worst  of  it.  My  damnation  is 
sealed." —  'William  Pope. 

"  Oh,  the  insufferable  pangs  of  hell." — Sir  Francis 
Newport. 

"I  must  die — abandoned  of  God  and  of  men." — Vol- 
taire. 


In  a  recent  rehash  of  an  old  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine 
we  find  the  following  paragraph:  "You  have  burned  us 
at  the  stake;  roasted  us  upon  slow  fires;  torn  our  flesh 
with  iron;  you  have  covered  us  with  chains;  treated  us 
as  outcasts ;  you  have  filled  the  world  with  fear ;  you  have 
taken  our  wives  and  our  children  from  our  arms,"  etc. 

We  ask  in  the  name  of  simplest  truth  and  common 
justice  who  it  is  that  have  suffered  these  things?  The 
answer  comes  from  every  page  of  history,  that  it  is  follow- 
ers of  Christ,  who  have  clung  to  Him  through  the  fires  of 
persecution  and  the  floods  of  misfortune. 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  115 

They  were  believers  in  the  Bible  who  went  to  the  stake; 
else,  why  were  Bibles  burned  with  them  in  the  flames? 
Men  do  not  go  to  the  rack,  the  stake,  or  the  guillotine, 
rather  than  renounce  their  faith  when  they  have  no  faith 
to  renounce. 

Men  and  women  do  not  choose  to  be  placed  in  red-hot 
iron  chains  rather  than  to  deny  a  Lord  on  whom  they  have 
never  believed. 

Men  do  not  submit  to  have  their  tungs  cut  out,  to  be 
thrown  to  wild  beasts,  or  to  perish  in  slow  fires,  in  prefer- 
ence to  recanting  from  a  position  they  have  never 
assumed. 

Cellsus  was  not  crucified;  Parphry  was  not  banished; 
Julian  did  not  suffer,  save  at  the  hands  of  his  own  con- 
science; Voltaire  was  not  thrown  into  a  caldron  of  boiling 
oil ;  Paine  was  not  burned  at  the  stake,  and  modern  skep- 
ti'cs  are  not  placed  in  the  stocks  or  whipped  in  the  streets. 

It  was  men,  women,  yes,  and  children,  who  clung  to  the 
written  word  when  fire  and  flame  and  irons  and  lash  were 
the  rewards  of  their  fidelity.  They  have  been  driven  to 
mountains  and  caverns,  to  wander  in  sheepskins  and  goat- 
skins— they  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy. 

The  same  hands  burned  Christians  that  burned  Bibles. 
They  thought  to  crush  the  book  and  its  believers  by  the 
same  means.  But  the  old  book  lives  on,  unmindful  of  the 
waves  that  beat  against  its  unfailing  foundations.  It  is 
still  the  "  pillar  of  cloud  "  by  day,  and  the  "  pillar  of  fire  " 
in  the  night  time  of  persecution,  and  thus  it  will  ever  be 
until  the  weary  feet  of  God's  little  ones  find  rest  upon  the 
ever  green  shores  of  eternal  life.-  Mrs.  IT.  V.  Reed. 


COL.  MOBERT  G.  1NG-1EM8OLL. 


116 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  117 


COL.  INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE  ON 
THOMAS  PAINE. 


Delivered    in    Central    Music  Hall,   Chicago,  January    29,    1880. 

(From  the  Chicago  Times,  Verbatim  Report.} 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  It  so  happened  that  the  first  speech — the 
very  first  public  speech  I  ever  made — I  took  occasion  to  defend  the 
memory  of  Thomas  Paine. 

I  did  it  because  I  had  read  a  little  something  of  the  history  of  my 
country.  I  did  it  because  I  felt  indebted  to  him  for  the  liberty  I  then 
enjoyed— and  whatever  religion  maybe  true,  ingratitude  is  the  blackest 
of  crimes.  And  whether  there  is  any  God  or  not,  in  every  star  that 
shines,  gratitude  is  a  virtue. 

The  man  who  will  tell  the  truth  about  the  dead  is  a  good  man,  and 
for  one,  about  this  man,  I  intend  to  tell  just  as  near  the  truth  as  I  can. 

Most  history  consists  in  giving  the  details  of  things  that  never  hap- 
pened— most  biography  is  usually  the  lie  coming  from  the  mouth  of 
flattery,  or  the  slander  coming  from  the  lips  of  malice,  and  whoever 
attacks  the  religion  of  a  country  will,  in  his  turn,  be  attacked.  Who- 
ever attacks  a  superstition  will  find  that  superstition  defended  by  all 
the  meanness  of  ingenuity.  Whoever  attacks  a  superstition  will  find 
that  there  is  still  one  weapon  left  in  the  arsenal  of  Jehovah — slander. 

I  was  reading,  on  yesterday,  a  poem  called  the  "Light  of  Asia,"  and 
I  read  in  that  how  a  Boodh  seeing  a  tigress  perishing  of  thirst,  with  her 
mouth  upon  the  dry  stone  of  a  stream,  with  her  two  cubs  sucking  at 
her  dry  and  empty  dugs,  this  Boodh  took  pity  upon  this  wild  and  fam- 
ishing beast,  and,  throwing  from  himself  the  yellow  robe  of  his  order, 
and  stepping  naked  before  this  tigress,  said :  "  Here  is  meat  for  you 
and  for  your  cubs."  In  one  moment  the  crooked  daggers  of  her  claws 
ran  riot  in  his  flesh,  and  in  another  he  was  devoured.  Such,  during 
nearly  all  the  history  of  this  world,  has  been  the  history  of  every  man 
who  has  stood  in  front  of  superstition. 

Thomas  Paine,  as  has  been  so  eloquently  said  by  the  gentleman  who 
introduced  me,  was  a  friend  of  man,  and  whoever  is  a  friend  of  man  is 
also  a  friend  of  God— if  there  is  one.  But  God  has  had  many  friends 


118  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

who  were  the  enemies  of  their  fellow-men.  There  is  but  one  test  by 
which  10  measure  any  man  who  has  lived.  Did  he  leave  this  world  bet- 
ter than  he  found  it  ?  Did  he  leave  in  this  world  more  liberty?  Did 
he  leave  in  this  world  more  goodness,  more  humanity,  than  when  he 
was  born?  That  is  the  test.  And  whatever  may  have  been  the  faults 
of  Thomas  Paine,  no  American  who  appreciates  liberty,  no  American 
who  believes  in  true  democracy  and  pure  republicanism,  should  ever 
breathe  one  word  against  hia  name.  Every  American,  with  the  divine 
mantle  of  charity,  should  cover  all  his  faults,  and  with  a  never-tiring 
tongue  should  recount  his  virtues. 

He  was  a  common  man.  He  did  not  belong  to  the  aristocracy. 
Upon  the  head  of  his  father  God  had  never  poured  the  divine  petro- 
leum of  authority.  He  had  not  the  misfortune  to  belong  to  the  upper 
classes.  He  had  the  fortune  to  be  born  among  the  poor  and  to  feel 
against  his  great  heart  the  throb  of  the  toiling  and  suffering  masses. 
Neither  was  it  his  misfortune  to  have  been  educated  at  Oxford.  What 
little  sense  he  had  was  not  squeezed  out  at  Westminster.  He  got  his 
education  from  books.  He  got  his  education  from  contact  with  his 
fellow-men,  and  he  thought;  and  a  man  is  worth  just  what  nature  im- 
presses upon  him.  A  man  standing  by  the  sea,  or  in  a  forest,  or  look- 
ing at  a  flower,  or  hearing  a  poem,  or  looking  into  the  eyes  of  the  woman 
he  loves,  receives  all  that  he  is  capable  of  receiving — and  if  he  is  a  great 
man  the  impression  is  great,  and  he  uses  it  for  the  purpose  of  benefiting 
his  fellow-man. 

Thomas  Paine  was  not  rich ;  he  was  poor,  and  his  father  Jbefore  him 
was  poor,  and  he  was  raised  a  sail-makar,  a  very  lowly  profession,  and 
yet  that  man  became  one  of  the  main-stays  of  liberty  in  this  world.  At 
one  time  he  was  an  excise  man,  like  Burns.  Burns  was  once — speak  it 
softly — a  ganger — and  yet  he  wrote  poems  that  will  wet  the  cheek  of 
humanity  with  tears  as  long  as  this  world  travels  in  its  orb  around  the 
sun. 

Poverty  was  his  brother,  necessity  his  master.  He  had  more  brains 
than  books;  more  courage  than  politeness;  more  strength  than  polish. 
He  had  no  veneration  for  old  mistakes,  no  admiration  for  ancient  lies. 
He  loved  fhe  truth  for  truth's  sake  and  for  man's  sake.  He  saw  op- 
pression on  every  hand,  injustice  every  where,  hypocrisy  at  the  altar, 
venality  on  the  bench,  tyranny  on  the  throne,  and  with  a  splendid  cour- 
age he  espoused  the  cause  of  the  weak  against  the  strong,  of  the  en- 
slaved many  against  the  titled  few. 

In  England  he  was  nothing.  He  belonged  to  the  lower  classes — that 
is,  the  useful  people.  England  depended  for  her  prosperity  upon  her 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  119 

mechanics  and  her  thinkers,  her  sailors  and  her  workers,  and  they  are 
the  only  men  in  Europe  who  are  not  gentlemen.  The  only  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  progress  in  Europe  were  the  nobility  and  the  priests,  and 
they  are  the  only  gentlemen. 

This,  and  his  native  genius,  constituted  his  entire  capital,  and  he 
needed  no  more.  He  found  the  colonies  clamoring  for  justice ;  whining 
about  their  grievances;  upon  their  knees  at  the  foot  of  the  throne,  im- 
ploring that  mixture  of  idiocy  and  insanity,  George  III,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  for  a  restoration  of  their  ancient  privileges.  They  were  not 
endeavoring  to  become  free  men,  but  were  trying  to  soften  the  heart  of 
their  master.  They  were  perfectly  willing  to  make  brick  if  Pharoah 
would  furnish  the  straw.  The  colonists  wished  for,  hoped  for,  and 
prayed  for  reconciliation.  They  did  not  dream  of  independence. 

Paine  gave  to  the  world  his  "  Common  Sense."  It  was  the  first  argu- 
ment for  separation ;  the  first  assault  upon  the  British  form  of  govern- 
ment; the  first  blow  for  a  republic,  and  it  aroused  our  fathers  like  a 
trumpet's  blast.  He  was  the  first  to  perceive  the  destiny  of  the  new 
.  world.  No  other  pamphlet  ever  accomplished  such  wonderful  results. 
It  was  filled  with  arguments,  reasons,  persuasions,  and  unanswerable 
logic.  It  opened  a  new  world.  It  filled  the  present  with  hope  and  the 
future  with  honor.  Everywhere  the  people  responded,  and  in  a  few 
months  the  Continental  Congress  declared  the  colonies  free  and  inde- 
pendent states.  A  new  nation  was  born. 

It  is  simple  justice  to  say  that  Paine  did  more  to  cause  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  than  any  other  man.  Neither  should  it  be  forgotten 
that  his  attacks  upon  Great  Britain  were  also  attacks  upon  monarchy, 
and  while  he  convinced  the  people  that  the  colonies  ought  to  separate 
from  the  mother  country,  he  also  proved  to  them  that  a  free  government 
is  the  best  that  can  be  instituted  among  men. 

In  my  judgment  Thomas  Paine  was  the  best  political  writer  that  ever 
lived.  "  What  he  wrote  was  pure  nature,  and  his  soul  and  his  pen  ever 
went  together."  Ceremony,  pageantry,  and  all  the  paraphernalia  of 
power,  had  no  effect  upon  him.  He  examined  into  the  why  and  where- 
fore of  things.  He  was  perfectly  radical  in  his  mode  of  thought. 
Nothing  short  of  the  bed-rock  satisfied  him.  His  enthusiasm  for  what 
he  believed  to  be  right  knew  no  bounds.  During  all  the  dark  scenes 
of  the  revolution  never  fora  moment  did  he  despair.  Year  after  year 
his  brave  words  were  ringing  through  the  land,  and  by  the  bivouac  fires 
the  weary  soldiers  read  the  inspiring  words  of  "  Common  Sense,"  filled 
with  ideas  sharper  than  their  swords,  and  consecrated  themselves  anew 
to  the  cause  of  freedom. 


120  MISTAKES  OF  INQER80LL. 

Paine  was  not  content  with  having  aroused  the  spirit  of  independence, 
but  he  gave  every  energy  of  his  soul  to  keep  that  spirit  alive.  He  was 
wit'i  the  army.  He  shared  its  defeats,  its  dangers,  and  its  glory. 
When  the  situation  became  desperate,  when  gloom  settled  upon  all,  he 
gave  them  the  "  Crisis."  It  was  a  cloud  by  day  and  a  pillar  of  fire  by 
night,  leading  the  way  to  freedom,  honor,  and  glory.  He  shouted  to 
them  "  These  are  the  times  that  try  men's  souls."  The  summer  soldier 
and  the  sunshine  patriot,  will,  in  this  crisis,  shrink  from  the  service  of 
his  country;  but  he  that  stands  it  now  deserves  the  love  and  thanks  uf 
man  and  woman. 

To  those  who  wished  to  put  the  war  off  to  some  future  day,  with  a 
lofty  and  touching  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  he  said:  "Every  generous 
parent  should  say:  'If  there  must  be  war,  let  it  be  in  my  day,  that  my 
child  may  have  peace.'  "  To  the  cry  that  Americans  were  rebels,  he 
replied :  "  He  that  rebels  against  reason  is  a  real  rebel ;  but  he  that  in 
defense  of  reason  rebels  against  tyranny,  has  a  better  title  to  '  Defender 
of  the  Faith '  than  George  III." 

Some  said  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the  colonies  to  be  free.  Paine 
answered  this  by  saying :  "  To  know  whether  it  be  the  interest  of  the 
continent  to  be  independent,  we  need  ask  only  this  simple,  easy  ques- 
tion :  '  Is  it  the  interest  of  a  man  to  be  a  boy  all  his  life  ?'  "  He  found 
many  who  would  listen  to  nothing,  and  to  them  he  said:  "That  to 
argue  with  a  man  who  has  renounced  his  reason  is  like  giving  medi- 
cine to  the  dead."  This  sentiment  ought  to  adorn  the  walls  of  every 
orthodox  church. 

There  is  a  world  of  political  wisdom  in  this :  "  England  lost  her 
liberty  in  a  long  chain  of  right  reasoning  from  wrong  principles;"  and 
there  is  real  discrimination  in  saying:  "The  Greeks  and  Romans  were 
utrongly  possessed  of  the  spirit  of  liberty,  but  not  the  principles,  for  at 
the  time  they  were  determined  not  to  be  slaves  themselves,  they  employed 
their  power  to  enslave  the  rest  of  mankind." 

In  his  letter  to  the  British  people,  in  which  he  tried  to  convince  them 
that  war  was  not  to  their  interest,  occurs  the  following  passage  brimful 
of  common  sense:  "  War  .never  can  be  the  interest  of  a  trading  nation 
any  more  tnan  quarreling  can  be  profitable  to  a  man  in  business.  But 
tt>  make  war  with  those  who  trade  with  us  is  like  setting  a  bull-dog  upon 
a  customer  at  the  shop  door." 

The  writings  of  Paine   fairly  glitter  with    simple,  compact,  logical 
statements  that  carry  conviction  to  the  dullest  and  most   prejudicial.  , 
He  had  the  happiest  possible  way  of  putting  the  case,  in  asking  quea 
lions  in  such  a  way  that  they  answer  themselves,  and  in  stating  his  pro 
mises  so  clearly  that  the  deduction  could  not  be  avoided. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  121 

Day  and  night  he  labored  for  America.  Month  after  mouth,  year  after 
year,  he  gave  himself  to  the  great  cause,  until  there  was  "  a  government 
of  the  people  and  for  the  people,"  and  until  the  banner  of  the  stars 
floated  over  a  continent  redeemed  and  consecrated  to  the  happiness  of 
mankind. 

At  the  close  of  the  Revolution  no  one  stood  higher  in  America  than 
Thomas  Paine.  The  best,  the  wisest,  the  most  patriotic  were  his  friends 
and  admirers ;  and  had  he  been  thinking  only  of  his  own  good  he  might 
have  rested  Irom  his  toils  and  spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  com- 
fort and  iu  ease.  He  could  have  been  what  the  world  is  pleased  to  call 
"respectable."  He  could  have  died  surrounded  by  clergymen,  war- 
riors, and  statesmen,  and  at  his  death  there  would  have  been  an  impos- 
ing funeral,  miles  of  carriages,  civic  societies,  salvos  of  artillery,  a  Na- 
tion in  mourning,  and,  above  all,  a  splendid  monument  covered  with  lies. 
He  chose  rather  to  benefit  mankind.  At  that  time  the  seeds  sown  by  the 
great  infidels  were  beginning  to  bear  fruit  in  France.  The  eighteenth 
century  was  crowning  its  gray  hairs  with  the  wreath  of  progress. 

On  every  hand  science  was' bearing  testimony  against  the  church. 
Voltaire  had  filled  Europe  with  light;  D'Holbach  was  giving  to  the 
elite  of  Paris  the  principles  contained  in  his  "  System  of  Nature."  The 
encyclopaedists  had  attacked  superstition  with  information  for  the 
masses.  The  foundation  of  things  began  to  be  examined.  A  few  had 
the  courage  to  keep  their  shoes  on  and  let  the  bush  burn.  Miracles 
began  to  get  scarce.  Everywhere  the  people  began  to  inquire.  Amer- 
ica had  set  an  example  to  the  world.  The  word  liberty  was  in  the 
mouths  of  men,  and  they  began  to  wipe  the  dust  from  their  supersti- 
tious knees.  The  dawn  of  a  new  day  had  appeared. 

Thomas  Paine  went  to  France.  Into  the  new  movement  he  threw  all 
his  energies.  His  fame  had  gone  before  him,  and  he  was  welcomed  as 
a  friend  of  the  human  race  and  as  a  champion  of  free  government 

He  had  never  relinquished  his  intention  of  pointing  out  to  his  country- 
men the  defects,  absurdities,  and  abuse  of  the  English  government.  For 
this  purpose  he  composed  and  published  his  greatest  political  work 
"  The  Rights  of  Man."  This  work  should  be  read  by  every  man  and 
woman.  It  is  concise,  accurate,  rational,  convincing,  and  Unanswerable. 
It  shows  great  thought,  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  various  forms  of 
government,  deep  insight  into  the  very  springs  of  human  action,  and  a 
courage  that  compels  respect  and  admiration.  The  most  difficult  politi. 
cal  p'roblems  are  solved  in  a  few  sentences.  The  venerable  arguments  in 
favor  of  wrong  are  refuted  with  a  question — answered  with  a  word.  For 
forcible  illustration,  apt  comparison,  accuracy  and  clearness  of  state- 
ment, and  absolute  thoroughness,  it  has  never  been  excelled. 


128  MISTAKES  OF  INGEEtSOLL. 

The  fears  of  the  administration  were  aroused,  and  Paine  was  prose- 
cuted for  libel,  and  found  guilty ;  and  yet  there  is  not  a  sentiment  in  the 
entire  work  that  will  not  challenge  the  admiration  of  every  civilized 
'man.  It  is  a  magazine  of  political  wisdom,  an  arsenal  of  ideas,  and  an 
honor  not  only  to  Thomas  Paine,  but  to  human  nature  itself.  It  could 
have  been  written  only  by  the  man  who  had  the  generosity,  the  exalted 
patriotism,  the  goodness  to  say :  "  The  world  is  my  country,  and  to  do 
good  my  religion." 

There  is  in  all  the  utterances  of  the  world  no  grander,  no  sublimer 
sentiment.  There  is  no  creed  that  can  be  compared  with  it  for  a  moment< 
It  should  be  wrought  in  gold,  adorned  with  jewels,  and  impressed  upon 
every  human  heart:  "The  world  is  my  country,  and  to  do  good  my 
religion." 

In  1792,  Paine  was.elected  by  the  department  of  Calais  as  their  repre- 
sentative in  the  National  Assembly.  So  great  was  his  popularity  in 
France,  that  he  was  selected  about  the  same  time  by  the  people  of  no  less 
than  four  departments. 

Upon  taking  his  place  in  the  assembly,  he  was  appointed  as  one  of  a 
committee  to  draft  a  constitution  for  France.  Had  the  French  people 
taken  the  advice  of  Thomas  Paine,  there  would  have  been  no  "  reign  of 
terrorj'  The  streets  of  Paris  would  not  have  been  filled  with  blood  in 
that  reign  of  terror.  There  were  killed  in  the  City  of  Paris  not  less,  I 
think,  than  seventeen  thousand  people — and  on  one  night,  in  the  massa. 
ere  of  St.  Bartholomew,  there  were  killed,  by  assassination,  over  sixty 
thousand  souls — men,  women,  and  children.  The  revolution  would  have 
been  the' grandest  success  of  the  world.  The  truth  is  that  Paine  was  too 
conservative  to  suit  the  leaders  of  the  French  revolution.  They,  to  a 
great  extent,  were  carried  away  by  hatred  and  a  desire  to  destroy.  They 
had  suffered  so  long,  they  had  borne  so  much,  that  it  was  impossible  for 
them  to  be  moderate  in  the  hour  of  victory. 

Besides  all  this,  the  French  people  had  been  so  robbed  by  the  govern- 
ment, so  degraded  by  the  church,  that  they  were  not  fit  material  with 
which  to  construct  a  republic.  Many  of  the  leaders  longed  to  establish 
a  beneficent  and  just  government,  but  the  people  asked  for  revenge. 
Paine  was  filled  with  a  real  love  for  mankind.  His  philanthropy  was 
boundless.  He  wished  to  destroy  monarchy — not  the  monarch.  He 
voted  for  the  destruction  of  tyranny,  and  against  the  death  of  the  tyrant. 
He  wished  to  establish  a  government  on  a  new  basis — one  that  would 
forget  the  past ;  one  that  would  give  privileges  to  none,  and  protection 
to  all. 

In  the  assembly,  where  all  were  demanding  the  execution  of  the  king, 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  123 

— where  to  differ  with  the  majority  was  to  be  suspected,  ana  where  to  be 
suspected  was  almost  certain  death — Thomas  Paine  had  the  courage,  the 
goodness,  and  the  justice  to  vote  against  death.  To  vote  against  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  king  was  a  vote  against  his  own  life.  This  was  the  sub- 
limity of  devot  on  to  principle.  For  this  he  was  arrested,  imprisoned, 
and  doomed  to  death.  There  is  not  a  theologian  who  has  ever  maligned 
Thomas  Paine  that  has  the  courage  to  do  this  thing.  When  Louis  Capet 
was  on  trial  for  his  life  before  the  French  convention,  Thomas  Paine 
had  the  courage  to  speak  and  vote  against  the  sentence  of  death.  In  his 
speech  I  find  the  following  splendid  sentiments  : 

My  contempt  and  hatred  for  monarchical  governments  are  sufficiently 
well  known,  and  my  compassion  for  the  unfortunate,  friends  or  enemies, 
is  equally  profound. 

I  have  voted  to  put  Louis  Capet  upon  trial,  because  it  was  necessary 
to  prove  to  the  world  the  perfidy,  the  corruption,  and  the  horror  of  the 
monarchical  system. 

To  follow  the  trade  of  a  king  destroys  all  morality,  just  as  the  trade  of 
a  jailer  deadens  all  sensibility. 

Make  a  man  a  king  to-day  and  to-morrow  he  will  be  a  brigand. 

Had  Louis  Capet  been  a  farmer,  he  might  have  been  held  in  esteem 
by  his  neighbors,  and  his  wickedness  results  from  his  position  rather 
than  from  his  nature. 

Let  the  French  nation  purge  its  territory  of  kings  without  soiling  itself 
with  their  impure  blood. 

Let  the  United  States  be  the  asylum  of  Louis  Capet,  where,  in  spite 
of  the  overshadowing  miseries  and  crimes  of  a  royal  life,  he  will  learn 
by  the  continual  contemplation  of  the"  general  prosperity  that  the  true 
system  of  government  is  not  that  of  kings,  but  of  the  people. 

I  am  an  enemy  of  kings,  but  I  can  not  forget  that  they  belong  to  the 
human  race. 

It  is  always  delightful  to  pursue  that  course  where  policy  and  human- 
ity are  united. 

As  France  has  been  the  first  of  all  the  nations  of  Europe  to  destroy 
royalty,  let  it  be  the  first  to  abolish  the  penalty  of  death. 

As  a  true  republican,  I  consider  kings  as  more  the  objects  of  contempt 
than  of  vengeance. 

Search  the  records  of  the  world  and  you  will  find  but  few  sublimer 
acts  than  that  of  Thomas  Paine  voting  against  the  king's  death.  He,  the 
hater  of  despotism,  the  abhorrer  of  monarchy,  the  champion  of  the  rights 
of  man,  the  republican,  accepting  death  to  save  the  life  of  a  deposed 
tyrant — of  a  throneless  king !  This  was  the  last  grand  act  of  his  political 
life — the  sublime  conclusion  of  his  political  career. 

.  All  his  life  he  had  been  the  disinterested  friend  of  man.  He  had 
labored  not  for  money,  not  for  fame,  but  for  the  general  good.  He  had 
aspired  to  no  office.  He  had  no  recognition  of  his  services,  but  had  ever 
been  content  to  labor  as  a  common  soldier  in  the  army  of  progress,  con- 


124  MISTAKES  OF  1XGERSOLL. 

fining  his  efforts  to  no  country,  looking  upon  the  world  as  his  field  ol 
action.  Filled  with  a  genuine  love  for  the  right,  he  found  himself  im- 
prisoned by  the  very  people  he  had  striven  to  save. 

Had  his  enemies  succeeded  in  bringing  him  to  the  block,  he  would 
have  escaped  the  calumnies  and  the  hatred  of  the  Christian  world.  And 
let  me  tell  you  how  near  they  came  getting  him  to  the  block.  He  was 
in  prison ;  there  was  a  door  to  his  cell— it  had  two  doors,  a  door  that 
opened  in  and  an  iron  door  that  opened  out.  It  was  a  dark  passage,  and 
whenever  they  concluded  to  cut  a  man's  head  off  the  next  day,  an  agent 
went  along  and  made  a  chalk- mark  upon  the  door  where  the  poor 
prisoner  was  bound.  Mr.  Barlow,  the  American  minister,  happened  to 
be  with  him  and  the  outer  door  was  shut,  that  is,  open  against  the  wall, 
and  the  inner  door  was  shut,  and  when  the  man  came  along  whose  busi- 
ness it  was  to  mark  the  door  for  death,  he  marked  this  door  where 
Thomas  Paine  was,  but  he  marked  the  door  that  was  against  the  wall, 
so  when  it  was  shut  the  mark  was  inside,  and  the  messenger  of  death 
passed  by  on  the  next  day.  If  that  had  happened  in  favor  of  some 
Methodist  preacher,  they  would  have  clearly  seen,  not  simply  the  hand 
of  God,  but  both  hands.  In  this  country,  at  least,  he  would  have  ranked 
witli  the  proudest  names.  On  the  anniversary  of  the  Declaration,  his 
name  would  have  been  upon  the  lips  of  all  orators,  and  his  memory  in 
the  hearts  of  all  the  people. 

Thomas  Paine  had  not  finished  his  career.  He  had  spent  his  life  thus 
far  in  destroying  the  power  of  Kings,  and  now  turned  his  attention  to 
the  priests.  He  knew  that  every  abuse  had  been  embalmed  in  scripture 
— that  every  outrage  was  in  partnership  with  some  holy  text.  He  knew 
that  the  throne  skulked  behind  the  altar,  and  both  behind  a  pretended 
revelation  of  God.  By  this  time  he  had  found  that  it  was  of  little  use 
to  free  the  body  and  leave  the  mind  in  chains.  He  had  explored  the 
foundations  of  despotism,  and  had  found  them  infinitely  rotten.  He  had 
dug  under  the  throne,  and  it  occurred  to  him  that  he  would  take  a  look 
behind  the  altar. 

The  result  of  this  investigation  was  given  to  the  world  in  the  "  Age 
of  Reason."  From  the  moment  of  its  publication  he  became  infamous. 
He  was  calumnia'ed  beyond  measure.  To  blander  him  was  to  secure 
the  thanks  of  the  church.  All  his  services  were  instantly  forgotten, 
disparaged,  or  denied.  He  was  shunned  as  though  he  had  been  a  pesti- 
lence. Most  of  his  old  friends  forsook  him.  He  was  regarded  as  a 
moral  plague,  and  at  the  bare  mention  of  his  name  the  bloody  hands  of 
the  church  were  raised  in  horror.  He  was  denounced  as  the  most 
despicable  of  men. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  125 

Not  content  with  following  him  to  his  grave,  they  pursued  him  after 
death  with  redoubled  fury,  and  recounted  with  infinite  gusto  and  satis- 
faction  the  supposed  horrors  of  his  death-bed ;  gloried  in  the  fact  that 
he  was  forlorn  and  friendless,  and  gloated  like  fiends  over  what  they 
supposed  to  be  the  agonizing  remorse  of  his  lonely  death. 

It  is  wonderful  that  all  his  services  are  thus  forgotten.  It  is  amazing 
that  one  kind  word  did  not  fall  from  some  pulpit;  that  some  one  did  not 
accord  to  him,  at  least— honesty.  Strange  that  in  the  general  denuncia- 
tion some  one  did  not  remember  his  labor  for  liberty,  his  devotion  to 
principle,  his  zeal  for  the  rights  of  his  fellow-men.  He  had,  by  brave 
and  splendid  effort,  associated  his  name  with  the  cause  of  progress. 
He  had  made  it  impossible  to  write  the  history  of  political  freedom  with 
his  name  left  out.  He  was  one  of  the  creators  of  light;  one  of  the 
heralds  of  the  dawn.  He  hated  tyranny  in  the  name  of  kings,  and  in 
the  name  of  God,  with  every  drop  of  his  noble  blood.  He  believed  in 
liberty  and  justice,  and  in  the  sacred  doctrine  of  human  equality. 
Under  these  divine  banners  he  fought  the  battle  of  his  life.  In  both 
worlds  he  offered  his  blood  for  the  good  of  man.  In  the  wilderness  of 
America,  in  the  French  assembly,  in  the  sombre  cell  waiting  for  death, 
he  was  the  same  unflinching,  unwavering  friend  of  his  race;  the  same 
undaunted  champion  of  universal  freedom.  And  for  this  he  has  been 
hated ;  for  this  the  church  has  violated  even  his  grave. 

This  is  enough  to  make  one  believe  that  nothing  is  more  natural  than 
for  men  to  devour  their  benefactors.  The  people  in  all  ages  have  cruci- 
fied and  glorified.  Whoever  lifts  his  voice  against  abuses,  whoever 
arraigns  the  past  at  the  bar  of  the  present,  whoever  asks  the  king  to 
show  his  commission,  or  question  the  authority  of  the  priest,  will  be 
denounced  as  the  enemy  of  man  and  God.  In  all  ages  reason  has  been 
regarded  a3  the  enemy  of  religion.  Nothing  has  been  considered  so 
pleasing  to  the  Deity  as  a  total  denial  of  the  authority  of  your  own 
mind.  Self-reliance  has  been  thought  deadly  sin ;  and  the  idea  of  living 
and  dying  without  the  aid  and  consolation  of  superstition  has  always 
horrified  the  church.  By  some  unaccountable  infatuation,  belief  has 
been  and  still  is  considered  of  immense  importance.  All  religions  have 
been  based  upon  the  idea  that  God  will  forever  reward  the  true  believer, 
and  eternally  damn  the  man  wao  doubts  or  denies.  Belief  is  regarded 
as  the  one  essential  thing.  To  practice  justice,  to  love  mercy,  is  not 
enough ;  you  must  believe  in  some  incomprehensible  creed.  You  must 
say :  "  Once  one  is  three,  and  three  times  one  is  one."  The  man  who 
practiced  every  virtue,  but  failed  to  believe,  was  execrated.  Nothing  so 
outrages  the  feelings  of  the  church  as  a  moral  unbeliever,  nothing  so 
horrible  as  a  charitable  atheist. 


126  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

When  Paine  was  born  the  world  (was  religious,  the  pulpit  was  the 
real  throne,  and  the  churches  were  making  every  effort  to  crush  out  of 
the  brain  the  idea  that  it  had  the  right  to  think.  He  again  made  up  his 
mind  to  sacrifice  himself.'  He  commenced  with  the  assertion,  "  That 
any  system  of  religion  that  has  anything  in  it  that  shocks  the  mind  of 
a  child  cannot  be  a  true  system."  What  a  beautiful,  what  a  tender  sen- 
timent !  No  wonder  the  church  began  to  hate  him.  He  believed  in  one 
God,  and  no  more.  After  this  life  he  hoped  for  happiness.  He  believed 
that  true  religion  consisted  in  doing  justice,  loving  mercy;  in  endeavor- 
ing to  make  our  fellow-creatures  happy,  and  in  offering  to  God  the 
fruit  of  the  heart.  He  denied  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  This 
was  his  crime. 

He  contended  that  it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  call  anything  a 
revelation  that  comes  to  us  at  second-hand,  either  verbally  or  in  writing. 
He  asserted  that  revelation  is  necessarily  limited  to  the  first  communi- 
cation, and  that  after  that  it  is  only  an  account  of  something  which  an- 
other person  says  was  a  revelation  to  him.  We  have  only  his  word  for 
it,  as  it  was  never  made  to  us.  This  argument  never  had  been,  and  prob- 
ably never  will  be  answered.  He  denied  the  divine  origin  of  Christ,  and 
showed  conclusively  that  the  pretended  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament 
had  no  reference  to  Him  whatever.  And  yet  he  believed  that  Christ  was 
a  virtuous  and  amiable  man;  that  the  morality  He  taught  and  practiced 
was  of  the  most  benevolent  and  elevated  character,  and  that  it  had  not 
been  exceeded  by  any.  Upon  this  point  he  entertained  the  same  senti- 
ments now  held  by  the  Unitarians,  and  in  fact  by  all  the  most  enlightened 
Christians. 

In  his  time  the  church  believed  and  taught  that  every  word  in  the 
Bible  was  absolutely  true.  Since  his  day  it  has  been  proven  false  in  its 
cosmogony,  false  in  its  astronomy,  false  in  its  chronology  and  geology, 
false  in  its  history,  and  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  false 
in  almost  everything.  There  are  but  few,  if  any,  scientific  men,  who 
apprehend  that  the  Bible  is  literally  true.  Who  on  earth  at  this  day 
would  pretend  to  settle  any  scientific' question  by  a  text  from  the  Bible  ? 
The  old  belief  is  confined  to  the  ignorant  and  zealous.  The  church  itself 
will  before  long  be  driven  to  occupy  the  position  of  Thomas  Paine.  The 
best  minds  of  the  orthodox  world,  to-day,  are  endeavoring  to  prove  the 
existence  of  a  personal  deity.  All  other  questions  occupy  a  minor  place. 
You  are  no  longer  asked  to  swallow  the  Bible  whole,  Whale,  Jonah  and 
all;  you  are  simply  required  to  believe  in  God  and  pay  your  pew-rent. 

There  is  not  now  an  enlightened  minister  in  the  world  who  will  seri- 
ously contend  that  Sampson's  strength  was  in  his  hair,  or  that  the 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  127 

necromancers  of  Egypt  could  turn  water  into  blood,  and  pieces  of  wood 
into  serpents.  These  follies  have  passed  away,  and  the  only  reason  that 
the  religious  world  can  now  have  for  disliking  Paine,  is  that  they  have 
been  forced  to  adopt  so  many  of  his  opinions. 

Paine  thought  the  barbarities  of  the  Old  Testament  inconsistent  with 
what  he  deemed  the  real  character  of  God.  He  believed  the  murder, 
massacre,  and  indiscriminate  slaughter  had  never  been  commanded  by 
the  Deity.  He  regarded  much  of  the  Bible  as  childish,  unimportant  and 
foolish.  The  scientific  world  entertains  the  same  opinion.  Paine  at- 
tacked the  Bible  precisely  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  he  had  attacked 
the  pretensions  of  the  kings.  He  used  the  same  weapons.  All  the  pomp 
in  the  world  could  not  make  him  cower.  His  reason  knew  no  "  Holy  of 
Holies,''  except  the  abode  of  truth.  The  sciences  were  then  in  their  in- 
fancy.  The  attention  of  the  really  learned  had  not  been  directed  to  an 
impartial  examination  of  our  pretended  revelation.  It  was  accepted  by 
most  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  church  was  all-powerful,  and  no  one  else,  unless  thoroughly 
imbued  with  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  thought  for  a  moment  of  disput- 
ing the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity.  The  infamous  doctrine 
that  salvation  depends  upon  belief,  upon  a  mere  intellectual  conviction, 
was  then  believed  and  preached.  To  doubt  was  to  secure  the  damnation 
of  your  soul.  This  absurd  and  devilish  doctrine  shocked  the  common 
sense  of  Thomas  Paine,  and  he  denounced  it  with  the  fervor  of  honest 
indignation.  This  doctrine,  although  infinitely  ridiculous,  has  been 
nearly  universal,  and  has  been  as  hurtful  as  senseless.  For  the  overthrow 
of  this  infamous  tenet,  Paine  exerted  all  his  strength.  He  left  few  argu- 
ments to  be  used  by  those  who  should  come  after  him,  and  he  used  none 
that  have  been  refuted. 

The  combined  wisdom  and  genius  of  all  mankind  can  not  possibly 
conceive  of  an  argument  against  liberty  of  thought.  Neither  can  they 
show  why  anyone  should  be  punished,  either  in  this  world  or  another, 
for  acting  honestly  in  accordance  with  reason;  and  yet  a  doctrine  with 
every  possible  argument  against  it  has  been,  and  still  is,  believed  and 
defended  by  the  entire  orthodox  world.  Can  it  be  possible  that  we  have 
been  endowed  with  reason  simply  that  our  souls  may  be  caught  in  its 
toils  and  snares,  that  we  may  be  led  by  its  false  and  delusive  glare  out  of 
the  narrow  path  that  leads  to  joy  into  the  broad  way  of  everlasting  death  ? 
Is  it  possible  that  we  have  been  given  reason  simply  that  we  may  through 
faith  ignore  its  deductions  and  avoid  its  conclusions  ?  Ought  the  sailor 
to  throw  away  his  compass  and  depend  entirely  upon  the  fog  ?  If  reason 
is  not  to  be  depended  upon  in  matters  of  religion,  that  i»  to  say,  in  re- 


128  A118SAKES  OF  iNOEKSOLL. 

spect  to  our  duties  to  the  Deity,  why  should  it  be  relied  upon  in  matters 
respecting  the  rights  of  our  fellows  ?  Why  should  we  throw  away  the 
law  given  to  Moses  by  God  Himself,  and  have  the  audacity  to  make  sornt 
of  our  own  ?  How  dare  we  drown  the  thunders  of  Sinai  by  calling  th» 
ayes  and  noes  in  a  petty  legislature?  If  reason  can  determine  what  is 
merciful,  what  is  just,  the  duties  of  man  to  man,  what  more  do  we  want 
either  in  lime  or  eternity? 

Down,  forever  down,  with  any  religion  that  requires  upon  its  ignorant 
fcltar  its  sacrifice  of  the  goddess  Reason ;  that  compels  her  to  abdicate 
forever  the  shining  throne  of  the  soul,  strips  from  her  form  the  imperial 
purple,  snatches  from  her  hand  the  sceptre  of  thought,  and  makes  her 
the  bond-woman  of  a  senseless  faith. 

If  a  man  should  tell  you  he  had  the  most  beautiful  painting  in  the 
world,  and  after  taking  you  where  it  was  should  insist  upon  having 
your  eyes  shut,  you  would  likely  suspect  either  that  he  had  no  painting 
or  that  it  was  some  pitiful  daub.  Should  he  tell  you  that  he  was  a  most 
excellent  performer  on  the  violin,  and  yet  refused  to  play  unless  your 
cars  were  stopped,  you  would  think,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  that  he  had 
an  odd  way  of  convincing  you  of  his  musical  ability.  But  would  this 
conduct  be  any  more  wonderful  than  that  of  a  religionist  who  asks  that 
before  examining  his  creed  you  will  have  the  kindness  to  throw  away 
your  reason?  The  first  gentleman  says:  "Keep  your  eyes  shut ;  my 
picture  will  bear  everything  but  being  seen."  "  Keep  your  ears  stopped ; 
my  music  objects  to  nothing  but  being  heard."  The  last  says :  "  Away 
with  your  reason ;  my  religion  dreads  nothing  but  being  understood." 

80  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  most  cheerfully  admit  that  most  Christians 
are  honest  and  most  ministers  sincere.  We  do  not  attack  them ;  we 
attack  their  creed.  We  accord  to  them  the  same  rights  that  we  ask  for 
ourselves.  We  believe  that  their  doctrines  are  hurtful,  and  I  am  going 
to  do  what  I  can  against  them.  We  believe  that  the  frightful  text, 
" He  that  believes  shall  behaved,  and  he  that  bcleiveth  not  shall  be 
dammed"  has  covered  the  earth  with  blood.  You  might  as  well  say  all 
that  have  red  hair  shall  be  damned.  It  has  filled  the  heart  with  arro- 
gance, cruelty,  and  murder.  It  has  caused  the  religious  wars;  bound 
hundreds  of  thousands  to  the  stake;  founded  inquisitions;  filled  dun- 
geons; invented  instruments  of  tortuie;  taught  the  mother  to  hate  her 
child ;  imprisoned  the  mind ;  filled  the  world  with  ignorance ;  persecuted 
the  lovers  of  wisdom ;  built  the  monasteries  and  convents;  made  happi. 
ness  a  crime,  investigation  a  sin,  and  self-reliance  a  blasphemy.  It  has 
poisoned  the  springs  of  learning;  misdirected  the  energies  of  the 
world;  filled  all  countries  with  want;  housed  the  people  in  hovels;  fed 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  130 

them  with  famine ;  and  but  for  the  efforts  of  a  few  brave  infidels,  it 
would  have  taken  the  world  back  to  the  midnight  of  barbarism,  and 
left  the  heavens  without  a  star. 

The  maligners  of  Paine  say  that  he  had  no  right  to  attack  this 
doctrine,  because  he  was  unacquainted  with  the  dead  languages,  and, 
for  this  reason,  it  was  a  piece  of  pure  impudence  to  investigate  the 
scriptures 

Is  it  necessary  to  understand  Hebrew  in  order  to  know  that  cruelty  is 
not  a  virtue,  that  murder  is  inconsistent  with  infinite  goodness,  and  that 
eternal  punishment  can  be  inflicted  upon  man  only  by  an  eternal  fiend? 
Is  it  really  essential  to  conjugate  the  Greek  verbs  before  you  can  make 
up  your  mind  ;is  to  the  probability  of  dead  people  getting  out  of  their 
graves  ?  Must  one  be  versed  in  Latin  before  he  is  entitled  to  express 
his  opinion  as  the  genuineness  of  a  pretended  revelation  from  God '? 
Common  sense  belongs  exclusively  tojno  tongue.  Logic  is  not  confirmed 
to,  nor  has  it  been  buried  with,  the  dead  languages.  Paine  attacked  the 
Bible  as  it  is  translated.  If  the  translation  is  wrong,  let  its  defenders 
correct  it. 

The  Christianity  of  Paine's  day  is  not  the  Christianity  of  our  time. 
There  has  been  a  great  improvement  since  then.  It  is  better  now 
because  there  is  less  of  it.  One  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  the  fore- 
most preachers  of  our  time — that  gentleman  who  preaches  in  this  mag- 
nificent hall — would  have  perished  at  the  stake.  Lord,  Lord,  how  John 
Calvin  would  have  liked  to  have  roasted  dlis  man,  and  the  perfume  of 
his  burning  flesh  would  have  filled  heaven  with  joy.  A  Universalist 
would  have  been  torn  to  pieces  ID  England,  Scotland,  and  America. 
Unitarians  would  have  found  themselves  in  the  stocks,  pelted  by  the 
rabble  with  dead  cats,  after  which  their  ears  would  have  been  cut  off, 
their  tongues  bored,  and  their  foreheads  branded.  Less  than  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  ago  the  following  law  was  in  force  in  Maryland : 
Be  it  enacted  by  the  right  honorable,  the  lord  proprietor,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  his  lordship's  governor,  and  the  upper  and 
lower  houses  of  the  assembly,  and  the  authori'.y  of  the  same : 
That  if  any  person  shall  hereafter,  within  this  province,  willingly, 
maliciously,  and  advisedly,  by  writing  or  speaking,  blaspheme  or  curse 
God,  or  deny  our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  or  shall 
deny  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Father,  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the 
God-l:ead  of  ar»y  of  the  three  persons,  or  the  unity  of  the  God-head,  or 
shall  utter  any  profane  words  concerning  the  Holy  Trinity,  or  the  persons 
thereof,  and  shall  therefor  be  convicted  by  verdict,  shall,  for  the  first 
offense,  be  bored  through  the  tongue,  and  fined  £20,  to  be  levied  on  his 
body.  As  for  the  second  offense,  the  offender  shall  be  stigmatized  by 
burning  in  the  forehead  the  letter  B,  and  fined  £40.  And  that  for  the 
third  offense,  the  offender  shall  suffer  death  without  the  benefit  of  clergy. 


130  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

The  strange  thing  about  this  law  is,  that  it  has  never  been  respected, 
and  was  in  force  in  the  District  of  Columbia  up  to  1875.  Laws  like  this 
were  in  force  in  most  of  the  colonies  and  in  all  countries  where  the 
church  had  power. 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  death  penalty  was  attached  to  hundreds  of 
offenses.  It  has  been  the  same  in  all  Christian  countries.  To-day,  in 
civilized  governments,  the  death  penalty  is  attached  only  to  murder  and 
treason ;  and  in  some  it  has  been  entirely  abolished.  What  a  commen- 
tary upon  the  divine  systems  of  the  world ! 

In  the  day  of  Thomas  Paine  the  church  was  ignorant,  bloody,  and  re. 
lentless.  In  Scotland  the  "kirk"  was  at  the  summit  of  its  power.  It 
was  a  *ull  sister  of  the  Spanish  inquisition.  It  waged  war  upon  human 
nature.  It  was  the  enemy  of  happiness,  the  hater  of  joy,  and  the  de- 
spiser  of  Jberty.  It  taught  parents  to  murder  their  children  rather  than 
to  allow  them  to  propagate  error.  If  the  mother  held  opinions  of  which 
the  infamous  "  kirk  "  disapproved,  her  children  were  taken  from  her 
arms,  her  babe  from  her  very  bosom,  and  she  was  not  allowed  to  see 
them,  or  write  them  a  word.  It  would  not  allow  shipwrecked  sailors  to 
be  rescued  from  drowning  on  Sunday. 

Oh,  you  have  no  idea  what  a  muss  it  kicks  up  in  heaven  to  have  any- 
body  swim  on  Sunday.  It  fills  all  the  wheeling  worlds  with  sadness  to 
see  a  boy  in  a  boat,  and  the  attention  of  the  recording  secretary  is  called 
to  it.  In  a  voice  of  thtmder  they  say,  "  Upset  him !  "  It  sought  to  an- 
nihilate pleasure,  to  pollute  the  heart  by  filling  it  with  religious  cruelty 
and  gloom,  and  to  change  mankind  into  a  vast  horde  of  pious,  heartless 
fiends.  One  of  the  most  famous  Scotch  divines  said:  "The  kirk  holds 
that  religious  toleration  is  not  far  from  blasphemy."  And  this  same 
Scotch  kirk  denounced,  beyond  measure,  the  man  who  had  the  moral 
grandeur  to  say,  "The  world  is  my  country,  and  to  do  good  my  religion." 
And  this  same  kirk  abhorred  the  man  who  said,  "Any  system  of  religion 
that  shocks  the  mind  of  a  child  can  not  be  a  true  system." 

At  that  time  nothing  so  delighted  the  church  as  the  beauties  of  endless 
torment,  and  listening  to  the  weak  wailing  of  damned  infants  struggling 
in  the  slimy  coils  and  poison  folds  of  the  worm  that  never  dies. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  a  boy  by  the  name  of 
Thomas  Aikenhead  was  indicted  and  tried  at  Edinburgh  for  having  de- 
nied the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  and  for  having,  on  several  occa- 
sions, when  cold,  wished  himself  in  hell  that  he  might  get  warm.  Not- 
withstanding the  poor  boy  recanted  and  begged  for  mercy,  he  was  found 
guilty  and  hanged.  His  body  was  thrown  in  a  hole  at  the  foot  of  the 
scaffold  and  covered  with  stones,  and  though  his  mother  came  with  her 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  131 

face  covered  with  tears,  begging  for  the  corpse,  she  was  denied  and 
driven  away  in  the  name  of  charity.  That  is  religion,  and  in  the  velvet 
of  their  politeness  there  lurks  the  claws  of  a  tiger.  Just  give  thetn  the 
power  and  see  how  quick  I  would  leave  this  part  of  the  country.  They 
know  I  am  going  to  be  burned  forever;  they  know  I  am  going  to  hell, 
but  that  don't  satisfy  them.  They  want  to  give  me  a  little  foretaste 
here. 

Prosecutions  and  executions  like  these  were  common  in  every  Chris- 
tian country,  and  all  of  them  based  upon  the  belief  that  an  intellectual 
conviction  is  a  crime.  No  wonder  the  church  hated  and  traduced  the 
author  of  the  "Age  of  Reason."  England  was  filled  with  Puritan  gloom 
and  Episcopal  ceremony.  The  ideas  of  crazy  fanatics  and  extravagant 
poets  were  taken  as  sober  facts.  Milton  had  clothed  Christianity  in  the 
soiled  and  faded  finery  of  the  gods — had  added  to  the  story  of  Christ  the 
fables  of  mythology.  He  gave  to  the  Protestant  church  the  most  out- 
rageously  material  ideas  of  the  Deity.  He  turned  all  the  angels  into 
soldiers — made  heaven  a  battle-field,  put  Christ  in  uniform,  and  de- 
scribed God  as  a  miiiti-i-gencral.  His  works  were  considered  by  the 
Protestants  nearly  as  sacred  as  the  Bible  itself,  and  the  imagination  of 
the  people  was  thoroughly  polluted  by  the  horrible  imagery,  the  sub- 
lime absurdity  of  the  blind  Milton. 

Heaven  and  hell  were  realities — the  judgment-day  was  expected — 
books  of  accounts  would  be  opened.  Every  man  would  bear  the 
charges  against  him  read.  God  was  supposed  to  sit  upon  a  golden 
throne,  surrounded  by  the  tallest  angels,  with  fiarps  in  their  hands  and 
crowns  on  theip  heads.  The  goats  would  be  thrust  into  eternal  fire  on 
the  left,  while  the  orthodox  sheep,  on  the  right,  were  to  gambol  on  sunny 
slopes  forever  and  ever.  So  all  the  priests  were  willing  to  save  the 
sheep  for  half  the  wool. 

The  nation  was  profundly  ignorant,  and  consequently  extremely  re- 
ligious, so  far  as  belief  was  concerned. 

In  Europe  liberty  was  lying  chained  up  in  the  inquisition,  her  white 
bosom  stained  with  blood.  In  the  new  world  the  Puritans  had  been 
hanging  and  burning  in  the  name  of  God,  and  selling  white  Quaker 
children  into  slavery  in  the  name  of  Christ,  who  said,  "  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  Me." 

Under  such  conditions  progress  was  impossible.  Some  one  had  to 
lead  the  way.  The  church  is,  and  always  has  been,  incapable  of  a  for- 
ward movement.  Religion  always  looks  back.  The  church  has  already 
reduced  Spain  to  a  guitar,  Italy  to  a  hand-organ,  and  Ireland  to  exile. 

Some  one,  not  connected  with  the  church,  had  toTattack  the  monster 


132  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  was  eating  out  the  heart  of  the  world.  Some  one  hud  to  sacrifice  him- 
self for  the  good  of  all.  The  people  were  in  the  most  abject  slavery; 
their  manhood  had  been  taken  from  them  by  pomp,  by  pageantry,  and 
power. 

Progress  is  born  of  doubt  and  inquiry.  The  church  never  doubts — 
never  inquires.  To  doubt  is  heresy — to  inquire  is  to  admit  that  you  do 
not  know — the  church  does  neither. 

More  than  a  century  ago  Catholicism,  wrapped  in  robes  red  with  the 
innocent  blood  of  millions,  holding  in  her  frantic  clutch  crowns  and 
sceptres,  honors  and  gold,  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell,  tramping  be- 
neath her  feet  the  liberties  of  nations,  in  the  proud  movement  of  almost 
universal  dominion,  felt  within  her  heartless  breast  the  deadly  dagger 
of  Voltaire.  From  that  blow  the  church  can  never  recover.  Livid 
with  hatred  she  launched  her  eternal  anathema  at  the  great  destroyer, 
and  ignorant  Protestants  have  echoed  the  curse  of  Rome. 

In  our  country  the  church  was  all-powerful,  and,  although  divided 
into  many  sects,  would  instantly  unite  to  repel  a  common  foe.  Paine 
did  for  Protestantism  what  Voltaire  did  for  Catholicism.  Paine  struck 
the  first  blow. 

The  "Age  of  Reason  "  did  more  to  undermine  the  power  of  the  Prot- 
estant church  than  all  other  books  then  known.  It  furnished  an 
immense  amount  of  food  for  thought.  It  was  written  for  the  average 
mind,  and  is  a  straightforward,  honest  investigation  of  the  Bible,  and 
of  the  Christian  system. 

Paine  did  not  falter,  from  the  first  page  to  the  last.  He  gives  you 
his  candid  thought,  and  candid  thoughts  are  always  valuable. 

The  "  Age  of  Reason"  has  liberalized  us  all.  It  put  arguments  in 
the  mouths  of  the  people;  it  put  the  church  on  the  defensive,  it  enabled 
somebody  in  every  village  to  corner  the  parson ;  it  made  the  world 
wiser,  and  the  church  better;  it  took  power  from  the  pulpit  and  divided 
it  among  the  pews. 

Just  in  proportion  that  the  human  race  has  advanced,  the  church  has 
lost  its  power.  There  is  no  exception  to  this  rule.  No  nation  ever 
materially  advanced  that  held  strictly  to  the  religion  of  its  founders. 
No  nation  ever  gave  itself  wholly  to  the  control  of  the  church  without 
losing  its  power,  its  honor,  and  existence. 

Every  church  pretends  to  have  found  the  exact  truth.  This  is  the 
end  of  progress.  Why  pursue  that  which  you  have?  Why  investigate 
when  you  know. 

Every  creed  is  a  rock  in  running  water;  humanity  sweeps  by  it. 
Every  creed  cries  to  the  universe,  "  Halt!"  A  creed  is  the  ignorant  past 
bullying  the  enlightened  present. 


ON  THOMAS  PAfNE.  133 

Tlie  ignorant  are  not  satisfied  with  what  can  be  demonstrated.  Science 
is  too  slow  for  them,  and  so  they  invent  creeds.  They  demand  complete- 
ness. A  sublime  segment,  a  grand  fragment,  are  of  no  value  to  them. 
They  demand  the  complete  circle — the  entire  structure. 

In  music  they  want  a  melody  with  a  recurring  accent  at  measured 
periods.  In  religion  they  insist  upon  immediate  answers  to  the  ques- 
tions of  creation  and  destiny.  The  alpha  and  omega  of  all  things  must 
be  in  the  alphabet  of  their  superstition.  A  religion  that  can  not  answer 
every  question,  and  guess  every  conundrum,  is,  in  their  estimation, 
worse  than  worthless.  They  desire  a  kind  of  theological  dictionary — a 
religious  ready  reckoner,  together  with  guide-boards  at  all  crossings  and 
turns.  They  mistake  impudence  for  authority,  solemnity  for  wisdom, 
and  pathos  for  inspiration.  The  beginning  and  the  end  are  what  they 
demand.  The  grand  flight  of  the  eagle  is  nothing  to  them.  They  want 
the  nest  in  which  he  was  hatched,  and  especially  the  dry  limb  upon 
which  he  roosts.  Anything  that  can  be  learned  is  hardly  worth  know- 
ing. The  present  is  considered  of  no  value  in  itself.  Happiness  must 
not  be  expected  this  side  of  the  clouds,  and  can  only  be  attained  by  self- 
denial  and  faith;  not  self-denial  for  the  good  of  others,  but  for  the  sal- 
vation of  your  own  sweet  self. 

Paine  denied  the  authority  of  Bibles  and  creeds;  this  was  his  crime, 
and  for  this  the  world  shut  the  door  in  his  face  and  emptied  its  slops 
upon  him  from  the  windows. 

I  challenge  the  world  to  show  that  Thomas  Paine  ever  wrote  one  line, 
one  word  in  favor  of  tyranny — in  favor  of  immorality;  one  line,  one 
word  against  what  he  believed  to  be  for  the  highest  and  best  interest 
of  mankind;  one  line,  one  word  against  justice,  charity,  or  liberty,  and 
yet  he  has  been  pursued  as  though  he  had  been  a  fiend  from  hell.  His 
memory  has  been  execrated  as  though  he  had  murdered  some  Uriah  for 
his  wife;  driven  some  Hagar  into  the  desert  to  starve  with  his  child 
upon  her  bosom ;  defiled  his  own  daughters ;  ripped  open  with  the 
sword  the  sweet  bodies  of  loving  and  innocent  women ;  advised  one 
brother  to  assassinate  another;  kept  a  harem  with  seven  hundred  wives 
and  three  hundred  concubines,  or  had  persecuted  Christians  even  unto 
strange  cities. 

The  church  has  pursued  Paine  to  Meter  others.  The  church  used 
painting,  music,  and  architecture  simply  to  degrade  mankind.  But 
there  are  men  that  nothing  can  awe.  There  have  been  at  all  times  brave 
spirits  that  dared  even  the  gods.  Some  proud  head  has  always  been 
above  the  waves.  Old  Diogenes,  with  his  mantle  upon  him,  stiff  and 
trembling  with  age,  caught  a  small  animal  bred  upon  people,  went  into 


134  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

the  Pantheon,  the  temple  of  the  gods,  ami  took  the  animal  upon  his 
thumbnail,  and,  pressing  it  with  the  other,  "he  sacrificed  Diogenes  to 
all  the  gods."'  Just  as  good  as  anything!  In  every  age  some  Diogenes 
has  sacrificed  to  all  the  gods.  True  genius  never  cowers,  and  there  is 
always  some  Samson  feeling  for  the  pillars  of  authority. 

Cathedrals  and  domes,  and  chimes  and  chants,  temples  frescoed  and 
groined  a»d  carved,  and  gilded  with  gold,  altars  and  tapers,  and  paint- 
ings of  virgin  and  babe,  censer  and  chalice,  chasuble,  paten  and  alb, 
organs,  and  anthems  and  incense  rising  to  the  winged  and  blest,  maniple, 
amice  and  stole,  crosses  and  crosiers,  tiaras,  and  crowns,  mitres  and 
missals  and  masses,  rosaries,  relics  and  robes,  martyrs  and  saints,  and 
windows  stained  as  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  never,  never  for  one  moment 
awed  the  brave,  proud  spirit  of  the  infidel.  He  knew  that  all  the  pomp 
and  glitter  had  been  purchased  with  liberty,  that  priceless  jewel  of  the 
soul.  In  looking  at  the  cathedral  he  remembered  the  dungeon.  The 
music  of  the  organ  was  not  loud  enough  to  drown  the  clank  of  fetters. 
He  could  not  forget  that  the  taper  had  lighted  the  fagot.  He  knew  that 
the  cross  adorned  the  hilt  of  the  sword,  and  so  where  others  worshiped, 
he  wept  and  scorned.  He  knew  that  across  the  open  Bible  lay  the 
sword  of  war,  and  so  where  others  worshiped  he  looked  with  scorn  and 
wept.  And  so  it  has  been  through  all  the  ages  gone. 

The  doubter,  the  investigator,  the  infidel,  have  been  the  saviors  of 
liberty.  The  truth  is  beginning  te  be  realized,  and  the  truly  intel- 
lectual are  honoring  the  brave  thinkers  of  the  past.  But  the  church  is 
as  unforgiving  as  ever,  and  still  wonders  why  any  infidel  should  be 
wicked  enough  to  attempt  to  destroy  her  power.  I  will  tell  the  church 
why  I  hate  it. 

You'havc  imprisoned  the  human  mind ;  you  have  been  the  enemy  of 
liberty;  you  have  burned  us  at  the  stake,  rousted  us  before  slow  fires, 
torn  our  flesh  with  irons ;  you  have  covered  us  with  chains,  treated  us 
as  outcasts;  you  have  filled  the  world  with  fear;  you  have  taken  our 
wives  and  children  from  our  arms ;  you  have  confiscated  our  property ; 
you  have  denied  us  the  rights  to  testify  in  courts  of  justice;  you  have 
branded  us  with  infamy ;  you  have  torn  out  our  tongues ;  you  have  re- 
fused us  burial.  In  the  name  of  your  religion  you  have  robbed  us  of 
every  right;  and  after  having  inflicted  upon  us  every  evil  that  can  be 
inflicted  in  this  world,  you  have  fallen  upon  your  knees,  and  with  clasped 
hands  implored  your  God  to  finish  the  holy  work  in  hell. 

Can  you  wonder  that  we  hate  your  doctrines;  that  we  despise  your 
creeds;  that  we  feel  proud  to  know  that  we  are  beyond  your  power; 
that  we  are  free  in  spite  of  you ;  that  we  can  express  our  honest  thought, 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  135 

and  that  the  whole  world  is  gradually  rising  into  the  blessed  light?  Can 
you  wonder  that  we  point  with  pride  to  the  fact  that  infidelity  has  ever 
been  found  battling  for  the  rights  of  man,  for  the  liberty  of  conscience, 
and  for  the  happiness  of  all  ?  Can  you  wonder  that  we  are  proud  to 
know  that  we  have  always  been  disciples  of  reason  and  soldiers  of  free- 
dom ;  that  we  have  denounced  tyranny  and  superstition,  and  have  kept 
our  hands  unstained  with  human  blood  ? 

I  deny  that  religion  is  the  end  or  object  of  this  life.  When  it  is  so 
considered  it  becomes  destructive  of  happiness.  The  real  end  of  life  is 
happiness.  It  becomes  a  hydra-headed  monster,  reaching  in  terrible 
coils  from  the  heavens,  and  thrusting  its  thousand  fangs  into  the  bleed- 
ing,  quivering  hearts  of  men.  It  devours  their  substance,  builds  pal- 
aces for  God  (who  dwells  not  in  temples  made  with  hands),  and  allows 
His  children  to  die  in  huts  and  hovels.  It  fills  the  earth  with  mourning 
heaven  with  hatred,  the  present  with  fear,  and  all  the  future  with  fire 
and  despair.  Virtue  is  a  subordination  of  the  passion  of  the  intellect. 
It  is  to  act  in  accordance  with  your  highest  convictions.  It  does  not 
consist  in  believing,  but  in  doing.  This  is  the  sublime  truth  that  the 
infidels  in  all  ages  have  uttered.  They  have  handed  the  torch  from  one 
to  the  other  through  all  the  years  that  have  fled.  Upon  the  altar  of 
reason  they  have  kept  the  sacred  fire,  and  through  the  long  midnight  of 
faith  they  fed  the  divine  flame.  Infidelity  is  liberty;  all  superstition  is 
slavery.  In  every  creed  man  is  the  slave  of  God,  woman  is  the  slave  of 
man,  and  the  sweet  children  are  the  slaves  of  all.  We  do  not  want 
creeds ;  we  wani  some  knowledge.  We  want  happiness.  And  yet  we 
are  told  by  the  church  that  we  have  accomplished  nothing;  that  we  are 
simply  destroyers ;  that  we  tear  down  without  building  again. 

Is  it  nothing  to  free  the  mind  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  civilize  mankind  ?  Is 
it  nothing  to  fill  the  world  with  light,  with  discovery,  with  science?  Is 
it  nothing  to  dignify  man  and  exalt  the  intellect  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  grope 
your  way  into  the  dreary  prisons,  the  damp  and  dropping  dungeons,  the 
dark  and  silent  cells  of  superstition,  where  the  souls  of  men  are  chained 
to  floors  of  stone;  to  greet  them  like  a  ray  of  light,  like  the  song  of  a 
bird,  the  murmur  of  a  stream,  to  see  the  dull  eyes  open  and  grow  slowly 
bright;  to  feel  yourself  grasped  by  the  shrunken  and  unused  hands,  and 
hear  yourself  thanked  by  a  strange  and  hollow  voice?  Is  it  nothing  to 
conduct  these  souls  gradually  into  the  blessed  light  of  day — to  let  them 
see  again  the  happy  field?,  the  sweet,  green  earth,  and  hear  the  everlast- 
ing music  of  the  waves  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  make  men  wipe  the  dust  from 
their  swollen  knees,  the  tears  from  their  blanched  and  furrowed  cheeks  ? 
Is  it  a  small  thing  to  reave  the  heavens  of  an  insatiate  monster  and  write 


133  MI  STARS 8  OF  INOERSOLL. 

upou  the  eternal  dome,  glittering  with  stars,  the  grand  word  liberty  ?  Is 
il  a  small  thing  to  quench  the  thirst  of  hell  with  the  holy  tears  of  piety, 
break  all  the  chains,  put  out  the  fires  of  civil  war,  stay  the  sword  of  the 
fanatic,  and  tear  the  bloody  hands  of  the  church  from  the  white  throat 
of  progress?  Is  it  a  small  thing  to  make  men  truly  free,  to  destroy  the 
dogmas  of  ignorance,  prejudice,  and  power,  the  poisoned  fables  of 
superstition,  and  drive  from  the  beautiful  face  of  the  earth  the  fiend  of 
fear? 

It  does  seem  as  though  the  most  zealous  Christians  must  at  times  en- 
tertain  some  doubt  as  to  the  divine  origin  of  his  religion.  For  eighteen 
hundred  years  the  doctrine  has  been  preached.  For  more  than  a  thou- 
sand years  the  church  had,  to  a  great  extent,  the  control  of  the  civilized 
world,  and  what  has  been  the  result  ?  Are  the  Christian  nations  patterns 
of  charity  and  forbearance?  On  the  contrary,  their  principal  business 
is  to  destroy  each  other.  More  than  five  millions  of  Christians  are 
trained  and  educated  and  drilled  to  murder  their  fellow-Christians. 
Every  nation  is  groaning  under  a  vast  debt  incurred  in  carrying  on  war 
against  other  Christians,  or  defending  itself  from  Christian  assault.  The 
world  is  covered  with  forts  to  protect  Christians  from  Christians,  and 
every  eea  is  covered  with  iron  monsters  ready  to  blow  Christian  brains 
into  eternal  froth.  Millions  upon  millions  are  annually  expended  in  the 
effort  to  construct  still  more  deadly  and  terrible  engines  of  death.  In- 
dustry is  crippled,  honest  toil  is  robbed,  and  even  beggary  is  taxed  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  Christian  murder.  There  must  be  some  other 
way  to  reform  this  world.  We  have  tried  creed  and  dogma  and  fable, 
and  they  have  failed — and  they  have  failed  in  all  the  nations  dead. 

Nothing  but  education — scientific  education — can  benefit  mankind. 
We  must  find  out  the  laws  of  nature  and  conform  to  them.  We  need 
free  bodies  and  free  minds,  free  labor  and  free  thought,  chainless  hands 
and  fetterless  brains.  Free  labor  will  give  us  wealth.  Free  thought  will 
give  us  truth.  We  need  men  with  moral  courage  to  speak  and  write 
their  real  thoughts,  and  to  stand  by  their  convictions,  even  to  the  very 
death.  We  need  have  no  fear  of  being  too  radical.  The  future  will 
verify  all  grand  and  brave  predictions.  Paine  was  splendidly  in  advance 
of  his  time,  but  he  was  orthodox  compared  to  the  infidels  of  to  day. 

Science,  the  great  iconoclast,  has  been  very  busy  since  1809,  and  by 
the  highway  of  progress  are  the  broken  images  of  the  past.  On  every 
hand  the  people  advance.  The  vicar  of  God  has  been  pushed  from  the 
throne  of  the  Caesars,  and  upon  the  roofs  of  the  Eternal  city  falls  once 
more  the  shadow  of  the  eagle.  All  has  been  accomplished  by  the  heroic 
few.  The  men  of  science  have  explored  heaven  and  earth,  and  with  in- 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  137 

finite  patience  have  furnished  the  facts.  The  brave  thinkers  have  aided 
them.  The  gloomy  caverns  of  superstition  have  been  transformed  into 
temples  of  thought,  and  the  demons  of  the  past  are  the  angels  of  to- 
day. 

Science  took  a  handful  of  sand,  constructed  a  telescope,  and  with  it 
explored  the  starry  depths  of  heaven.  Science  wrested  from  the  gods 
their  thunderbolts ;  and  now,  the  electric  spark  freighted  with  thought 
and  love,  flashes  under  all  the  waves  of  the  sea.  Science  took  a  tear 
from  the  cheek  of  unpaid  labor,  converted  it  into  steam,  and  created  a 
giant  that  turns  with  tireless  arm  the  countless  wheels  of  toil. 

Thomas  Paine  was  one  of  the  intellectual  heroes,  one  of  the  men  to 
whom  we  are  indebted.  His  name  is  associated  forever  with  the  great 
republic.  He  lived  a  long,  laborious,  and  useful  life.  The  world  is 
better  for  his  having  lived.  For  the  sake  of  truth  he  accepted  hatred  and 
reproach  for  his  portion.  He  ate  the  bitter  bread  of  neglect  and  sorrow. 
His  friends  were  untrue  to  him  because  he  was  true  to  himself  and  true 
to  them.  He  lost  the  respect  of  what  is  called  society,  but  kept  his 
own.  His  life  is  what  the  world  calls  failure,  and  what  history  calls 
success. 

If  to  love  your  fellow-men  more  than  self  is  goodness,  Thomas  Paine 
was  good.  If  to  be  in  advance  of  your  time,  to  be  a  pioneer  in  the 
direction  of  right,  is  greatness,  Thomas  Paine  was  great.  If  to  avow 
your  principles  and  discharge  your  duty  in  the  presence  of  death  is 
heroic,  Thomas  Paine  was  a  hero. 

At  the  age  of  73,  death  touched  his  tired  heart.  He  died  in  the  land 
his  genius  defended,  under  the  flag  he  gave  to  the  skies.  Slander  can 
not  touch  him  now;  hatred  can  not  reach  him  more.  He  sleeps  in  the 
sanctuary  of  the  tomb,  beneath  the  quiet  of  the  stars.  A  few  more  years, 
a  few  more  brave  men,  a  few  more  rays  of  light,  and  mankind  will  ven- 
erate the  memory  of  him  who  said : 

Any  system  of  religion  that  shocks  the  mmd  of  a  child  can  not  be  a 
true  system.  The  world  is  my  country,  and  to  do  good  my  religion. 

The  next  question  is:  Did  Thomas  Paine  recant?  Mr.  Paine  had 
prophesied  that  fanatics  would  crawl  and  cringe  around  him  during  his 
last  moments.  He  believed  that  they  would  put  a  lie  in  the  mouth  of 
death.  When  the  shadow  of  the  coming  dissolution  was  upon  him,  two 
clergymen,  Messrs.  Milledollar  and  Cunningham,  called  to  annoy  the 
dying  man.  Mr.  Cunningham  had  the  politeness  to  say :  "  You  have 
now  a  full  view  of  death ;  you  can  not  live  long;  whoever  does  not  believe 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  will  assuredly  be  damned."  Mr.  Paine  replied : 
"  Let  me  have  none  of  your  popish  stuff.  Get  away  with  you.  Good 


THOMAS    PAINE. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  139 

* 

morning."  On  another  occasion  a  Methodist  minister  obtruded  himself. 
Mr.  Willet  Hicks  was  present.  The  minister  declared  to  Mr.  Paine  that 
"unless  he  repented  of  his  unbelief  he  would  be  damned."  Paine, 
although  at  the  door  of  death,  rose  in  his  bed  and  indignantly  requested 
the  clergyman  to  leave  the  room.  On  another  occasion,  two  brothers  by 
the  name  of  Pigott  sought  to  convert  him.  He  was  displeased,  and  re- 
quested their  departure.  Afterward,  Thomas  Nixon  and  Capt.  Daniel 
Pelton  visited  him  for  the  express  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  he 
had,  in  any  manner,  changed  his  religious  opinions.  They  were  assured 
by  the  dying  man  that  he  still  held  the  principles  he  had  expressed  in 
his  writings. 

Afterward,  these  gentlemen,  hearing  that  William  Gobbet  was  about 
to  write  a  life  of  Paine,  sent  him  the  following  note:  I  must  tell  you 
now  that  it  is  of  great  importance  to  find  out  whether  Paine  recanted- 
If  he  recanted,  then  the  Bible  is  true — you  can  rest  assured  that  a  spring 
of  water  gushed  out  of  a  dead  dry  bone.  If  Paine  recanted,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  doubt  about  that  donkey  making  that  speech  to  Mr.  Baalam 
— not  the  slightest — and  if  Paine  did  not  recant,  then  the  whole  thing  is 
a  mistake.  I  want  to  show  that  Thomas  Paine  died  as  he  has  lived,  a 
friend  of  man  and  without  superstition,  and  if  you  will  stay  here  I  will 
do  it. 

NEW  YORK,  April  24,  1818. — SIR:  Having  been  informed  that  you 
have  a  design  to  write  a  history  of  the  life  and  writings  of  Thomas  Paine, 
if  you  have  been  furnished  with  materials  in  respect  to  his  religious 
opinions,  or  rather  of  his  recantation  of  his  former  opinions  before  his 
de  <th,  all  you  have  heard  of  his  recanting  is  false.  Being  aware  that 
such  reports  would  be  raised  after  his  death  by  fanatics  who  infested  his 
house  at  the  time  it  was  expected  he  would  die,  we,  the  subscribers,  in- 
timate  acquaintances  of  Thomas  Paine  since  the  year  1776,  went  to  his 
house.  He  was  sitting  up  iti  a  chair,  and  apparently  in  full  vigor  and 
use  of  all  his  mental  faculties  We  interrogated  him  upon  his  religious 
opinions,  and  if  he  had  changed  his  mind,  or  repented  of  anything  he 
had  said  or  wrote  on  that  subject.  He  answered,  "  Not  at  all,"  and 
appeared  rather  offended  at  our  supposition  that  any  change  should  take 
place  in  his  mind.  We  took  down  in  writing  the  questions  put  to  him 
and  his  answers  thereto,  before  a  number  of  persons  then  in  his  room, 
among  whom  were  his  doctor,  Mrs.  Bonneville,  etc.  This  paper  is  mis- 
laid and  can  not  be  found  at  present,  but  the  above  is  the  substance, 
which  can  be  attested  by  many  living  witnesses.  THOMAS  NIXON, 

DANIEL  PELTON. 

Mr.  Jarvia,  the  artist,  saw  Mr.  Paine  one  or  two  days  before  his  death. 
To  Mr.  Jarvis  he  expressed  his  belief  in  his  written  opinions  upon  the 
subject  of  religion.  B.  F.  Haskin,  an  attorney  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
also  visited  him,  and  inquired  as  to  his  religious  opinions.  Paine  was 
then  upon  the  threshold  of  death,  but  he  did  not  tremble,  he  was  not  a 


140  MISTAKES  OF  INOEKSOLL. 

coward.     He  expressed  his  firm  and  unshaken  belief  in  the  religion 
ideas  he  had  given  to  the  world. 

Dr.  Manly  was  with  him  when  he  spoke  his  last  words.  Dr.  Manly 
asked  the  dying  man,  and  Dr.  Manly  was  a  Christian,  if  he  did  not  wish 
to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  ihe  dying  philosopher 
answered:  "  I  have  no  wish  to  believe  on  that  subject."  Amasa  Woods. 
worth  sat  up  with  Thomas  Paine  the  night  before  his  death.  In  1839 
Gilbert  Vale,  hearing  that  Woodsworth  was  living  in  or  near  Boston, 
visited  him  for  the  purpose  of  getting  his  statement,  and  the  statement  • 
was  published  in  The  Beacon  of  June  5,  1839,  and  here  it  is: 

We  have  just  returned  from  Boston.  One  object  •  f  our  visit  to  that 
city  was  to  see  Mr.  Amasa  Woodsworth,  an  engineer,  now  retired  in  a 
handsome  cottage  and  garden  at  East  Cambridge,  Boston.  This  gentle- 
man owned  the  house  occupied  by  Paine  at  his  death,  while  he  lived 
next  door.  As  an  act  of  kindness,  Mr.  Woodsworth  visited  Mr.  Paine 
every  day  for  six  weeks  before  his  death.  He  frequently  s-at  up  with  him, 
and  did  so  on  the  last  two  nights  of  his  life.  He  was  always  there  with 
Dr.  Manly,  the  physician,  and  assisted  in  removing  Mr.  Paine  while  his 
bed  was  prepared.  He  was  present  when  Dr.  Manly  asked  Mr.  Paine  if 
he  wished  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God.  He  says  that 
lying  on  his  back  he  used  some  action  and  with  much  emphasis  replied : 
"  I  have  no  wish  to  believe  on  that  subject.'1  He  lived  some  time  after 
this,  but  was  not  known  to  speak,  for  he  died  tranquilly.  He  accounts 
for  the  insinuating  style  of  Dr.  Manly's  letter  by  stating  that  that  gentle- 
man, just  after  its  publication,  joined  a  church.  He  informs  us  that  he 
has  openly  proved  the  doctor  for  the  falsity  contained  in  the  spirit  of 
that  letter,  boldly  declaring  before  Dr.  Manly,  who  is  still  living,  that 
nothing  which  he  saw  justified  the  insinuations.  Mr.  Woodsworth 
assures  us  that  he  neither  heard  nor  saw  anything  to  justify  the  belief  of 
any  mental  change  in  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Paine  previous  to  his  death; 
but  that  being  very  ill  and  in  pain,  chiefly  arising  from  the  skin  being 
removed  in  some  parts  by  long  lying,  he  was  generally  too  uneasy  to 
enjoy  conversation  on  abstract  subjects.  This,  then,  is  the  best  evidence 
that  can  be  procured  on  this  subject,  and  we  publish  it  while  the  contra- 
vening parties  are  yet  alive,  and  with  the  authority  of  Mr.  Woodsworth. 

GILBERT  VALE. 

A  few  weeks  ago  I  received  the  following  letter,  which  confirms  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Vale: 

NEAR  STOCKTON,  Cal.,  GREEJTWOOD  COTTAGE,  July  9,  1877. — COL- 
INGERSOL.L:  In  1842  I  talked  with  a  gentleman  in  Boston.  I  have 
forgotten  his  name;  but  he  was  then  an  engineer  of  the  Charleston 
navy  yard.  I  am  thus  particular  so  that  you  can  find  his  name  on  the 
books.  He  told  me  that  he  nursed  Thomas  Paine  in  his  last  illness,  and 
closed  his  eyes  when  dead.  I  asked  him  if  he  recanted  and  called  upon 
God  to  save  him.  He  replied:  "No;  he  died  as  he  had  taught.  He 
had  a  sore  upon  his  side,  and  when  we  turned  him  it  was  very  painful, 
and  he  would  cry  out, '  O  God!'  or  something  like  that."  "But," said 
the  narrator,  ''that  was  nothing,  for  he  believed  in  a  God."  I  told  him 
that  I  had  often  heard  it  asserted  from  the  pulpit  that  Mr.  Paine  had 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  HI 

recanted  in  his  last  moment.  The  gentleman  said  that  it  was  not  true, 
and  he  appeared  to  be  anjntelligeut,  truthful  man.  With  respect,  I 
remain,  etc.,  PHILIP  GRAVES,  M.  D. 

The  next  witness  is  Willet  Hicks,  a  Quaker  preacher.  He  says  that 
during  the  last  illness  of  Mr.  Paine  he  visited  him  almost  daily,  and  that 
Paine  died  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  religious  opinions  that 
he  had  given  to  his  fellow-men.  It  was  to  this  same  Willet  Hicks  that 
Paine  applied  for  permission  to  be  buried  in  the  cemetery  of  the 
Quakers.  Permission  was  refused.  This  refusal  settles  the  question  of 
recantation.  If  he  had  recanted,  of  course  there  would  have  been  no 
objection  to  his  body  being  buried  by  the  side  of  the  best  hypocrites  in 
the  earth.  If  Paine  recanted,  why  should  he  be  denied  "a  little  earth 
for  charity?"  Had  he  recanted,  it  would  have  been  regarded  as  a  vast 
and  splendid  triumph  for  the  gospel.  It  would,  with  much  noise  and 
pomp  and  ostentation,  have  been  heralded  about  the  world. 

Here  is  another  letter: 

PEOKIA,  111.,  Oct.  8, 1877. — ROBERT  G.  INQEIISOLL. — Esteemed  Friend: 
My  parents  were  Friends  (Quakers).  My  father  died  when  I  was  very 
young.  The  elderly  and  middle-aged  Friends  visited  at  my  mother's 
house.  We  lived  in  the  City  of  New  York.  Among  the  number  1  dis- 
tinctly remember  Elias  Hicks,  Willet  Hicks,  and  a  Mr. Day,  who 

was  a  bookseller  in  Pearl  St.  There  were  many  others  whose  names  I 
do  not  now  remember.  The  subject  of  the  recantation  of  Thomas 
Paine  of  his  views  about  the  Bible  in  his  last  illness,  or  any  other  time, 
was  discussed  by  them  in  my  presence  at  different  times.  I  learned 
from  them  that  some  of  them  had  attended  upon  Thomas  Paine  in  his 
last  sickness,  and  ministered  to  his  wants  up  to  the  lime  of  his  death. 
And  upon  the  question  of  whether  he  did  recant  there  was  but  one  ex- 
pression. They  all  said  that  he  did  not  recant  in  any  manner.  I  often 
heard  them  say  they  wished  he  had  recanted.  In  fact,  according  tot  hem, 
the  nearer  he  approached  death  the  more  positive  he  appeared  10  be  in 
his  convictions.  These  conversations  were  from  1820  to  1822.  I  was  at 
that  time  from  ten  to  twelve  years  old,  but  these  conversations  impressed 
themselves  upon  me  because  many  thoughtless  people  then  blamed  the 
society  of  Friends  for  their  kindness  to  that  "arch-infidel,"  Thomas 
Paine.  Truly  yours,  A.  C.  HANKENSON. 

A  few  days  ago  I  received  the  following: 

ALBANY,  N.  Y.,  Sept.  27,1877. — DEAR  SIR:  it  is  over  twenty  years 
ago  that,  professionally,  I  made  the  acquaintance  of  John  Hogeboom, 
a  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  County  Rensselaer,  New  York.  He  was 
then  over  seventy  years  of  age,  and  had  the  reputation  of  being  a  man 
of  candor  and  integrity.  He  was  a  great  admirer  of  Paine.  He  told 
me  he  was  personally  acquainted  with  him,  and  used  to  see  him  fre- 

Siently  during  the  last  years  of  his  life  in  the  City  of  New  York,  where 
ogeboom  then  resided.    I  asked  him  if  there  was  any  truth  in  the 
charge  that  Paine  was  in  the  habit  of  getting  drunk.    He  said  that  it 
was  utterly  false ;  that  he  never  heard  of  such  a  thing  during  the  life- 
time of  Mr.  Paine,  and  did  not  believe  anyone  else  did.    I  asked  him 


142  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

about  the  recantation  of  his  religious  opinions  on  his  deathbed,  and  the 
revolting  deathbed  scenes  that  the  world  heard  so  much  about.  He  said 
there  was  no  truth  in  them;  that  he  had  received  his  information  from 
persons  who  attended  Paine  in  his  last  illness,  and  that  he  passed 
peacefully,  as  we  may  say,  in  the  sunshine  of  a  great  soul.  Yours 
truly,  W.  J.  HILTON. 

The  witnesses  by  whom  I  substantiate  the  fact  that  Thomas  Paine 
did  not  recant,  and  that  he  died  holding  the  religious  opinions  he  had 
published  are: 

1.  Thomas  Nixon,  Capt.  Daniel  Pelton,  B.  F.  Haskin.    These  gentle- 
men visited  him  during  his  last  illness  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
whether  he  had,  in  any  respect,  changed  his  views  upon  religion.    He 
told  them  that  he  had  not. 

2.  James  Cheetham.     This  man  was  the  most  malicious  enemy  Mr. 
Paine  had,  and  yet  he  admits  that  "Thomas  Paine  died  placidly,  and 
almost  without  a  struggle." — Life  of  T/iomas  Paine,  by  James  Clieetham. 

3.  The  ministers,   Milledollar  and  Cunningham.    These  gentleman 
told  Mr.  Paine  that  if  he  died  without  believing  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  he  would  be  damned,  and  Paine  replied :     "  Let  me  have  none  of 
your  popish  stuff.    Good  morning." — Sherwiri's  Life  of  Paine,  page  220. 

4.  Mrs.  Hedden.     She  told  these  same  preachers,  when  they  attempted 
to  obtrude  themselves  upon  Mr.  Paine  again,  that  the  attempt  to  convert 
Mr.  Paine  was  useless ;  "  that  if  God  did  not  change  his  mind,  no  human 
power  could." 

5.  Andrew  A.  Dean.      This  man  lived  upon  Paine's  farm,  at  New 
Rochelle,  and  corresponded  with  him  upon  religious  subjects. — Paine't 
Theological  Works,  Page  308. 

6.  Mr.  Jarvis,  the  artist  with  whom  Paine  lived.    He  gives  an  ac- 
count of  an  old  lady  coming  to  Paine,  and  telling    him    that  God 
Almighty  had  sent  her  to  tell  him  that  unless  he  repented  and  believed 
in  the  blessed  Saviour  he  would  be  damned.    Paine  replied  that  God 
would  not  send  such  a  foolish  old  waman  with  such  an  impertinent 
message. — Clio  Rickmari't  Life  of  Paine. 

7.  William  Carver,  with  whom  Paine  boarded.    Mr.  Carver  said  again 
and  again  that  Paine  did  not  recant.    He  knew  him  well,  any  had  every 
opportunity  of  knowing. — Life  of  Paine,  by  Vale. 

8.  Dr.  Manly,  who  attended  him  in  his  last  sickness,  and  to  whom 
Paine  spoke  his  last  words.     Dr.  Manly  asked  him  Jif  he  did  not  wish 
to  believe  in  Jesus  Curist,  and  he  replied:  "  I  have  no  wish  to  believe 
on  that  subject." 

9.  "Willet  Hicks  and  Elias  Hicks,  who  were  with  him  frequently  dur- 
ing his  last  sickness,  and  both  of  whom  tried  to  persuade  him  to  recant 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  143 

According  to  their  testimony  Mr.  Paine  died  as  he  lived — a  believer  in 
God  and  a  friend  to  man.  Willet  Hicks  was  offered  money  to  say 
something  false  against  Paine.  He  was  even  offered  money  to  remain 
silent,  and  allow  others  to  slander  the  dead.  Mr.  Hicks,  speaking  of 
Thomas  Paine,  said:  "He  was  a  good  man.  Thomas  Paine  was  fan 
honest  man." 

10.  Amasa  Woodsworth,  who  was  with  him  every  day  for  some  six 
weeks  immediately  preceding  his  death,  and  sat  up  with  him  the  last  two 
nights  of  his  life.    This  man  declares  that  Paine  did  not  recant,  and 
that  he  died  tranquilly.    The  evidence  of  Mr.  Woodsworth  is  conclu- 
sive. 

11.  Thomas  Paine  himself.    The  will  of  Mr.  Paine,  written  by  him- 
self, commences  as  follows:  "The  last  will  and  testament  of  me,  the 
subscriber,  Thomas  Paine,  reposing  confidence  in  my  Creator,  God,  and 
in  no  other  being,  for  I  know  of  no  other,  nor  believe  in  any  other,"  and 
closes  with  these  words:  "  I  have  lived  an  honest  and  useful  life  to  man- 
kind.    My  time  has  been  spent  in  doing  good,  and  I  die  in  perfect  com- 
posure and  resignation  to  the  will  of  my  Creator,  God." 

12.  If  Thomas  Paine  recanted,  why  do  you  pursue  him  ?    If  he  recanted 
he  died  in  your  belief.    For  what  reason,  then,  do  you  denounce  his  death 
as  cowardly  ?    If  upon  his  death-bed  he  renounced  the  opinions  he  had 
published,  the  business  of  defaming  him   should  be  done  by  infidels, 
not  by  Christians.     I  ask  Christians  if  it  is  honest  to  throw  away  the 
testimony  of  his  friends,  the  evidence  of  fair  and  honorable  men,  and 
take  the  putrid  words  of   avowed  and   malignant  enemies?     When 
Thomas  Paine  was  dying  he  was  infested  by  fanatics,  by  the  snaky 
spies  of  bigotry.     In  the  shadows  of  death  were  the  unclean  birds  of 
prey  waiting  to  tear,  with  beak  and  claw,  the  corpse  of  him  who  wrote 
the  "Rights  of  Man,"  and  there  lurking  and  crouching  in  the  darkness, 
were  the  jakal  s  and  hyenas  of  superstition,  ready  to  violate  his  grave. 
These  birds  of  prey — these  unclean  beasts — are  the  witnesses  produced 
and  relied  upon  to  malign  the  memory  of  Thomas  Paine.     One  by  one 
the  instruments  of  torture  have  been  wrenched  from  the  cruel  clutch  of 
the  church,  until  within  the  armory  of  orthodoxy  there  remains  but  one 
weapon — Slander. 

Against  the  witnesses  that  I  have  produced  there  can  be  brought  just 
two — Mary  Roscoe  and  Mary  Hinsdale.  The  first  is  referred  to  in  the 
memoir  of  Stephen  Grellet.  She  had  once  been  a  servant  in  his  house. 
Grellet  tells  what  happened  between  this  girl  and  Paine.  According  to 
this  account,  Paine  asked  her  if  she  had  ever  read  any  of  his  writings, 
and  on  being  told  that  she  had  read  very  little  of  them,  he  inquired 


i44  MISTAKES  OF  INGEHSOLL. 

what  she  thought  of  them,  adding  that  from  such  an  one  as  she  he 
expected  a  correct  answer. 

Let  us  examine  this  falsehood.  Why  would  Paine  expect  a  correct 
answer  about  his  writings  from  one  who  read  very  little  of  them  ?  Does 
not  such  a  statement  devour  itself?  This  young  lady  fuither  said  that 
the  "  Age  of  Reason  "  was  put  in  her  hands,  and  that  the  more  she  read 
in  it,  the  more  dark  and  distressed  she  felt,  and  that  she  threw  the  book 
into  the  fire.  Whereupon  Mr.  Paine  remarked:  "  I  wish  all  had  done 
as  you  did,  for  if  the  devil  ever  had  any  agency  in  any  work,  he  had  in 
my  writing  that  book." 

The  next  is  Mary  Hinsdale.  She  was  a  servant  in  the  family  of  Wil- 
let  Hicks.  The  church  is  always  proving  something  by  a  nurse.  She, 
like  Mary  Roscoe,  was  sent  to  carry  some  delicacy  to  Mr.  Paine.  To 
this  young  lady  Paiue,  according  to  his  account,  said  precisely  the  same 
that  he  did  to  Mary  Roscoe,  and  she  said  the  same  thing  to  Mr.  Paine. 

My  own  opinion  is  that  Mary  Roscoe  and  Mary  Hinsdale  are  one  and 
the  same  person,  or  the  same  story  has  been,  by  mistake,  put  in  the 
mouths  of  both.  It  is  not  possible  that  the  identical  conversation 
should  have  taken  place  between  Paine  and  Mary  Roscoe  and  between 
him  and  Mary  Hinsdale.  Mary  Hinsdale  lived  with  Willet  Hicks,  and 
he  pronounced  her  story  a  pious  fraud  and  fabrication. 

Another  thing  about  this  witness.  A  woman  by  the  name  of  Mary 
Lockwood,  a  Hicksite  Quaker,  died.  Mary  Hinsdale  met  her  brother 
about  that  time  and  told  him  that  his  sister  bad  recanted,  and  wanted 
her  to  say  so  at  her  funeral.  This  turned  out  to  be  a  lie. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  Mary  Hinsdale  made  her  statement  to  Charles 
Collins.  Long  after  the  alleged  occurrence  Gilbert  Yale,  one  of  the 
biographers  of  Paine,  had  a  conversation  with  Collins  concerning  Mary 
Hinsdale.  Vale  asked  him  what  he  thought  of  her.  He  replied  that 
some  of  the  Friends  believed  that  she  used  opiates,  and  that  they  did 
not  give  credit  to  her  statements.  He  also  said  that  he  believed  what 
the  Friends  said,  but  thought  that  when  a  young  woman  she  might  have 
told  the  truth. 

In  1818  William  Cobbett  came  to  New  York.  He  began  collecting 
material  for  a  life  of  Thomas  Paine.  In  this  -way  he  became  acquainted 
with  Mary  Hinsdale  and  Charles  Collins.  Mr.  Cobbett  gave  a  full 
account  of  what  happened  in  a  letter  addressed  to  The  Norwich  Mercury 
in  1819.  From  this  account  it  seems  that  Charles  Collit  s  told  Cobbett 
that  Paine  had  recanted.  Cobbett  called-  for  the  testimony,  and  told 
Mr.  Collins  that  [he  must  give  time,  place,  and  circumstances.  He 
finally  brought  a  statement  that  he  stated  had  been  made  by  Mary 
Hinsdale.  Armed  with  this  document,  Cobbett,  in  October  of  that 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  145 

year,  called  upon  the  said  Mary  Hinsclale,  at  No.  10  Anthony  Street, 
New  York,  and  showed  her  the  statement.  Upon  being  questioned  by 
Mr.  Cobbettshe  said  that  it  was  so  long  ago  tbat  she  could  not  speak 
positively  to  any  part  of  the  matter;  that  she  would  not  say  that  any 
part  of  the  paper  was  true;  that  she  had  never  seen  the 
paper,  and  that  she  had  never  given  Charles  Collins  authority 
to  say  anything  about  the  matter  in  her  name.  And  so  in  the 
month  of  October,  in  theyear  of  grace  1818,  in  the  mist  of  fog  and  for. 
getfulness,  disappeared  forever  one  Mary  Hinsdale,  the  last  and  only 
witness  against  the  intellectual  honesty  of  Thomas  Paine. 

A  letter  was  written  to  the  editor  of  The  New  York  World  by  the 
Rev.  A.  W.  Cornell,  in  which  he  says: 

SIR:  I  see-by  your  paper  that  Bob  Ingersoll  discredits  Mary  Hins- 
dale's  story  of  the  scenes  which  occurred  at  the  death  bed  of  Thomas 
Paine.  No  one  who  knew  that  {rood  old  lady  would  for  one  moment 
doubt  her  veracity,  or  question  her  testimony.  Both  she  and  her  hus- 
band were  Quaker  preachers,  and  well  known  and  respected  inhabitants 
of  New  York  City. 

Ingersoll  is  right  in  his  conjecture  that  Mary  Roscoe  and  Mary  Hins- 
dale were  the  same  person.  Her  maiden  mame  was  Roscoe  and  she 
married  Henry  Hinsdale.  My  mother  was  a  Roscoe,  a  niece  of  Mary 
Roscoe,  and  lived  with  her  for  some  time. 

REV.  A.  W.  CORNELL,  Harpersville,  N.  Y. 

The  editor  of  the  New  York  Observer  took  up  the  challenge  that  I  had 
thrown  down.  I  offered  $1  000  in  gold  to  any  minister  who  would 
prove,  Or  to  any  person  who  would  prove  that  Thomas  Paine  recanted 
in  his  last  hours.  The  New  'York  Observer  accepted  the  wager,  and  then 
told  a  falsehood  about  it.  But  I  kept  after  the  gentlemen  until  I  forced 
them,  in  their  paper,  published  on  the  1st  of  November,  1877,  to  print 
these  words : 

We  have  never  stated  in  any  form,  nor  have  we  ever  supposed,  that 
Paine  actually  renounced  his  infidelity.  The  accounts  agree  in  stating 
that  he  died  a  blaspheming  infidel. 

This,  I  hope,  for  all  coming  time  will  refute  the  slanders  of  the 
churches  yet  to  be. 

The  next  charge  they  make  is  that  Thomas  Paine  died  in  destitution 
and  want.  That,  of  course,  would  show  that  he  was  wrong.  They 
boast  that  the  founder  of  their  religion  had  not  whereon  to  lay  his 
head,  but  when  they  found  a  man  who  stood  for  the  rights  of  man, 
when  they  say  that  he  did,  that  is  an  evidence  that  this  doctrine  was  a 
lie.  Won't  do!  Did  Thomas  Paine  die  in  destitution  and  want?  The 
charge  has  been  made  over  and  over  again  that  Thomas  Paine  died  in 
want  and  destitution ;  that  he  was  an  abandoned  pauper — an  outcast, 
without  friends  and  without  money.  This  charge  is  just  as  false  as  the 
10 


146  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

rest.  Upon  his  return  to  this  country,  in  1802,  he  was  worth  $30,000, 
according  to  his  own  statement,  made  at  that  time  in  the  following  let- 
ter, and  addressed  to  Clio  Rickman: 

My  dear  friend,  Mr.  Monroe,  who  is  appointed  minister  extraordinary 
to  France,  takes  charge  of  this,  to  be  delivered  to  Mr.  Este,  banker,  in 
Paris,  to  be  forwarded  to  you. 

I  arrived  in  Baltimore,  30th  of  October,  and  you  can  have  no  idea  of 
the  agitation  which  my  arrival  occasioned.  From  New  Hampshire  to 
Georgia  (an  extent  of  1,500  miles),  every  newspaper  was  tilled  with 
applause  or  abuse. 

My  property  in  this  country  has  been  taken  care  of  by  my  friends,  and  is 
now  worth  six  thousand  pounds  sterling,  which,  put  in  the  funds,  will 
bring  about  £400  sterling  a  year. 

Remember  me  in  affection  and  friendship  to  your  wife  and  family, 
and  in  the  circle  of  your  friends.  TIIOMAS  PAINE. 

A  man  in  those  days  worth  $30,000  was  not  a  pauper.  That  amount 
would  bring  an  income  of  at  least  $2,000.  Two  thousand  dollars  then 
would  be  fully  equal  to  $5,000  now.  On  the  12th  of  July,  1809,  the 
year  in  which  he  died,  Mr.  Paine  made  his  will.  From  this  instrument 
we  learn  that  he  was  the  owner  of  a  valuable  farm  within  twenty  miles 
of  New  York.  He  was  also  owner  of  thirty  shares  in  the  New  York 
Phoenix  Insurance  Company,  worth  upward  of  $1,500.  Besides  this, 
some  personal  property  and  ready  money.  By  his  will  he  gave  to 
Walter  Morton  and  Thomas  Addis  Emmet,  a  brother  of  Robert  Emmet, 
$200  each,  and  $100  to  the  widow  of  Elihu  Palmer.  Is  it  possible  that 
this  will  was  made  by  a  pauper,  by  a  destitute  outcast,  by  a  man  who 
suffered  for  the  ordinary  necessities  of  life  ?  • 

But  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  he  was  poor,  and  that  he 
died  a  beggar,  does  that  tend  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  an  inspired  book, 
and  that  Calvin  did  not  burn  Servetus  ?  Do  you  really  regard  poverty  as 
a  crime?  If  Paine  had  died  a  millionaire,  would  Christians  have 
accepted  his  religious  opinions  ?  If  Paine  had  drank  nothing  but  cold 
water,  would  Christians  have  repudiated  the  five  cardinal  points  of  Cal- 
vinism? Does  an  argument  depend  for  its  force  upon  the  pecuniary 
condition  of  the  person  making  it?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  most  reform- 
ers— most  men  and  women  of  genius— have  been  acquainted  with 
poverty.  Beneath  a  covering  of  rags  have  been  found  some  of  the 
tenderest  and  bravest  hearts. 

Owing  to  the  attitude  of  the  churehes  for  the  last  fifteen  hundred 
years,  truth  telling  has  not  been  a  very  lucrative  business.  As  a  rule, 
hypocrisy  has  worn  the  robes,  and  honesty  the  rags.  That  day  is  pass- 
ing away.  You  can  not  now  answer  a  man  by  pointing  at  the  holes  in 
his  coat.  Thomas  Paine  attacked  the  church  when  it  was  powerful ; 
when  it  had  what  is  called  honors  to  bestow ;  when  it  was  the  keeper  of 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  147 

the  public  conscience;  when  it  was  strong  and  cruel.  The  church 
waited  till  he  was  dead,  and  then  attacked  his  reputation  and  his  clothes. 
Once  upon  a  time  a  donkey  kicked  a  lion.  The  lion  was  dead.  You 
just  don't  know  how  happy  I  ain  to-night  that  justice  so  long  delayed 
at  last  is  going  to  be  done,  and  to  see  so  many  splendid  looking  people 
come  here  out  of  deference  to  the  memory  of  Thomas  Paine.  I  am  glaii 
to  be  here. 

The  next  thing  is:  Did  Thomas  Paine  live  the  life  of  a  drunken 
beast,  and  did  he  die  a  drunken,  cowardly,  and  beastly  death  ?  Well,  we 
will  see.  Upon  you  rests  the  burden  of  substantiating  these  infamous 
charges.  The  Christians  have,  I  suppose,  produced  the  best  evidence  in 
their  possession,  and  that  evidence  I  will  now  proceed  to  examine. 
Their  first  witness  is  Grant  Thorburn.  He  made  three  charges  against 
Thomas  Paine: 

1.  That  his  wife  obtained  a  divorce  from  him  in  England  for  cruelty 
and  neglect. 

2.  That  he  was  a  defaulter  and  fled  from  England  to  America. 

3.  That  he  was  a  drunkard. 

These  three  charges  stand  upon  the  same  evidence— the  word  of  Grant 
Thorburn  If  they  are  not  all  true,  Mr.  Thorburn  stands  impeached. 

The  charge  that  Mrs.  Paine  obtained  a  divorce  on  account  of  the 
cruelty  and  neglect  of  her  husband  is  utterly  false.  There  is  no  such 
record  in  the  world,  and  never  was.  Paine  and  his  wife  separated  by 
mutual  consent.  Each  respected  the  other.  They  remained  friends. 
This  charge  is  without  any  foundation,  in  fact,  I  challenge  the  Christian 
world  to  produce  the  record  of  this  decree  of  divorce.  According  to 
Mr.  Thorburn,  it  was  granted  in  England.  In  that  country  public  rec- 
ords are  kept  of  all  such  decrees.  I  will  give  $1,000  if  they  will  produce 
a  decree,  showing  that  it  was  given  on  account  of  cruelty,  or  admit  that 
Mr.  Thorburn  was  mistaken. 

Thomas  Paine  was  a  just  man.  Although  separated  from  his  wife,  he 
always  spoke  of  her  with  tenderness  and  respect,  and  frequently  tent 
her  money  without  letting  her  know  the  source  from  whence  it  came. 
Was  this  the  conduct  of  a  drunken  beast  ? 

The  next  is  that  he  was  a  defaulter,  and  fled  from  England  to  America. 
As  I  told  you  in  the  first  place,  he  was  an  exciseman ;  if  he  was  a  de- 
faulter, that  fact  is  upon  the  records  of  Great  Britain.  I  will  give  $1,000 
in  gold  to  any  man  who  will  show,  by  the  records  of  England,  that  he 
was  a  defaulter  of  a  single,  solitary  cent.  Let  us  bring  these  gentlemen 
to  Limerick. 

And  they  charge  that  he  was  a  drunkard.  That  is  another  falsehood. 
He  drank  liquor  in  his  day,  as  did  the  preachers.  It  was  no  unusual 


148  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

thing  for  a  preacher  going  home  to  stop  in  a  tavern  and  take  a  drink  of 
hot  ruin  with  a  deacon,  and  it  was  no  unusual  thing  for  the  deacon  to 
help  the  preacher  home.  You  have  no  idea  how  they  loved  the  sacra- 
ment in  those  days.  They  had  communion  pretty  much  all  the  time. 

Thorburn  says  that  in  1802  Paine  was  an  "old  remnant  of  mortality, 
drunk,  bloated,  and  half  asleep."  Can  anyone  believe  this  to  be  a  true 
account  of  the  personal  appearance  of  Mr.  Paine  in  1802  ?  He  had  just 
returned  from  France.  He  had  been  welcomed  home  by  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son, who  had  said  that  he  wa§  entitled  to  the  hospitality  of  every 
American. 

In  1802  Mr.  Paine  was  honored  with  a  public  dinner  in  the  City  of 
New  York.  He  was  called  upon  and  treated  with  kindness  and  respect 
by  such  men  as  De  Witt  Clinton.  In  1806  Mr.  Paine  wrote  a  letter  to 
Andrew  A.  Dean  upon  the  subject  of  religion.  Read  that  letter  and 
then  say  that  the  writer  of  it  was  an  old  remnant  of  mortality,  drunk, 
bloated,  and  half  asleep.  Search  the  files  of  Christian  papers,  from  the 
first  issue  to  the  last,  and  you  will  find  nothing  superior  to  this  letter.  In 
1803  Mr.  Paine  wrote  a  letter  of  considerable  length,  and  of  great  force, 
to  his  friend  Samuel  Adams.  Such  letters  are  not  written  by  drunken 
beasts,  nor  by  remnants  of  old  mortality,  nor  by  drunkards.  It  was 
about  the  same  time  that  he  wrote  his  "  Remarks  on  Robert  Hall's  Ser- 
mons." These  "Remarks"  were  not  written  by  a  drunken  beast,  but  by 
a  clear-headed  and  thoughtful  man. 

In  1804  he  published  an  essay  on  the  invasion  of  England  and  a 
treatise  on  gun-boats,  full  of  valuable  maritime  information ;  in  1805  a 
treatise  on  yellow  fever,  suggesting  modes  of  prevention.  In  short,  he 
was  an  industrious  and  thoughtful  man.  He  sympathized  with  the  poor 
and  oppressed  of  all  lands.  He  looked  upon  monarchy  as  a  species  of 
physical  slavery.  He  had  the  goodness  to  attack  that  form  of  govern- 
ment. He  regarded  the  religion  of  his  day  as  a  kind  of  mental  slavery. 
He  had  the  courage  to  give  his  reasons  for  his  opinion.  His  reasons 
filled  the  churches  with  hatred.  Instead  of  answering  his  arguments 
they  attacked  him.  Men  who  were  not  fit  to  blacken  his  shoes  blackened 
his  character.  There  is  too  much  religious  cant  in  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Thorburn.  He  exhibits  too  much  anxiety  to  tell  what  Grant  Thorburn 
said  to  Thomas  Paine.  He  names  Thomas  Jefferson  as  one  of  the  dis- 
reputable men  who  welcomed  Paine  with  open  arms.  The  testimony 
of  a  man  who  regarded  Thomas  Jefferson  as  a  disreputable  person,  as 
to  the  character  of  anybody,  is  utterly  without  value. 

Now,  Grant  Thorburn— this  gentleman  who  was  "  four  feet  and  a  half 
high,  and  who  weighed  ninety-eight  pounds  three  and  one-half  ounces" 
— says  that  he  used  to  sit  nights  at  Carver's,  in  New  York,  with  Thomas 


tttf  THOMAS  PAINE.  149 

Paine.  Mrs.  Ferguson,  the  daughter  of  William  Carver,  says  that  she 
knew  Thorburn  when  she  saw  him,  but  that  she  never  saw  him  in  her 
father's  house.  The  denial  of  Mrs.  Ferguson  enraged  Thorburn,  and  he 
at  once  wrote  a  few  falsehoods  about  her.  Thereupon  a  suit  was  com- 
menced by  Mrs.  Ferguson  and  her  husband  against  Thorburn,  the  writer, 
and  Fanshavv,  the  publisher,  of  the  libel.  Thorburn  ran  away  to  Con- 
necticut. Fanshaw  wrote  him  for  evidence  of  what  he  had  written. 
Thorburn  replied  that  what  he  had  written  about  Mrs.  Ferguson  could 
not  be  proved.  Fanshaw  then  settled  with  the  Fergusons,[  pa}'ing  them 
the  amount  demnu  Jed. 

In  1859  the  Fergusons  lived  at  No.  148  Duane  Street,  New  York.  In 
The  Commercial  Advertiser  of  New  York,  in  1830,  appeared  the  written 
acknowledgment  of  this  same  little  Grant  Thorburn  that  he  did,  on  the 
22d  of  August,  1830,  at  half-past  6  in  the  morning,  take  four  bottles  of 
cider  from  the  cellar  of  Mr.  Comstock. 

Mr.  Comstock  says  that  Thorburn  was  arrested,  and  that  when  brought 
before  him  he  pleaded  guilty  and  threw  himself  upon  his  (Comstock's) 
mercy. 

The  Philadelphia  Tract  Society  gave  Thorburn  $100  to  write  his  rec- 
ollections of  Thomas  Paine. 

Let  us  dispose  of  this  four  feet  and  a  half  of  wretch.  In  October,  1877> 
I  received  the  following  letter  frem  James  Parton: 

NEWBURYPORT,  Mass.,  Oct.  27,  1877.— MY  DEAR  SIR:  Touching 
Grant  Thorburn,  I  personally  knew  him  to  have  been  a  liar.  At  the  age 
of  92  he  copied  witli  trembling  hand  a  piece  from  a  newspaper  and 
brought  it  to  the  office  of  The  Home  Journal  as  his  own.  It  was  I  who 
received  it  and  detected  the  deliberate  forgery.  *  *  JAMES  PARTON. 

So  much  for  Grant  Thorburn.  In  my  judgment,  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Thorburn  should  be  thrown  aside  as  utterly  unworthy  of  belief. 

The  next  witness  is  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Wickham,  D.  D.,  who  tells  what  an 
elder  in  his  church  said.  This  elder  said  that  Paine  passed  his  last  clays 
on  his  farm  at  New  Rochelle,  with  a  solitary  female  attendant.  This  is 
not  true.  He  did  not  pass  his  last  days  at  New  Rochelle,  consequently, 
this  pious  elder  did  not  see  him  during  his  last  days  at  that  place.  Upon 
this  elder  we  prove  an  alibi.  Mr.  Paine  passed  his  last  days  in  the  City 
of  New  York,  in  a  house  upon  Columbia  Street.  The  story  of  the  Rev. 
J.  D.  Wickham,  D.  D.,  is  simply  false. 

The  next  competent  false  witness  was  the  Rev.  Charles  Hawley,  D.  D., 
who  proceeds  to  state  that  the  story  of  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Wickham,  D.  D.,  is 
corroborated  by  older  citizens  of  New  Rochelle.  The  names  of  these 
ancient  residents  are  withheld.  According  to  these  unknown  witnesses, 
the  account  given  by  the  deceased  elder  was  entirely  correct.  But  as  the 
particulars  of  Mr.  Paine's  conduct  "  were  too  loathsome  to  be  described 
in  print,"  we  are  left  entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  what  he  really  did. 


150  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

While  at  New  Kochelle,  Mr.  Paine  lived  with  Mr.  Purdy,  Mr.  Dean, 
with  Capt.  Pelton,  and  with  Mr.  Staple.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  all  of 
these  gentlemen  give  the  lie  direct  to  the  statements  of  "  older  residents" 
and  ancient  citizens  spoken  of  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Hawley,  D.  D.,  and 
leave  him  with  the  "loathsome  particulars"  existing  only  in  his  own 
mind. 

The  next  gentleman  brought  upon  the  stand  is  W.  H.  Ladd,  who 
quotes  from  the  memoirs  of  Stephen  Grellett.  This  gentleman  also  has 
the  misfortune  to  be  dead.  According  to  his  account,  Mr.  Paine  made 
his  recantation  to  a  servant  girl  of  his  by  the  name  of  Mary  Roscoe.  Mr. 
Paine  uttered  the  wish  thart  all  who  read  his  book  had  burned  it.  I 
believe  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  name  of  this  girl.  Her  name  was  prob- 
ably Mary  Hinsdale,  as  it  was  once  claimed  that  Paine  made  the  same 
remark  to  her. 

These  are  the  witnesses  of  the  church,  and  the  only  ones  you  bring 
forward  to  support  your  charge  that  Thomas  Paine  lived  a  drunken 
and  beastly  life,  and  died  a  drunken,  cowardly,  and  beastly  death.  All 
these  calumnies  are  found  in  a  life  of  Paine  by  James  Cheetham,  the 
convicted  libeler  already  referred  to.  Mr.  Cheetham  was  an  enemy  of 
the  man  whose  life  he  pretended  to  write.  In  order  to  show  you  the 
estimation  in  which  this  libeler  was  held  by  Mr.  Paine,  I  will  give  you 
a  copy  of  a  letter  that  throws  light  upon  this  point: 

OCT.  27, 1807. — MR.  CHEETHAM:  Unless  you  make  a  public  apology 
for  the  abuse  and  falsehood  in  your  paper  of  Tuesday,  Oct.  27,  respect- 
ing me,  I  will  prosecute  you  for  lying.  THOMAS  PAINE. 

In  another  letter,  speaking  of  this  same  man,  Mr.  Paine  says :  "If  an 
unprincipled  bully  can  not  be  reformed,  he  can  be  punished."  Cheet- 
ham has  been  so  long  in  the  habit  of  giving  false  information,  that  truth 
is  to  him  like  a  foreign  language. 

Mr.  Cheetham  wrote  the  life  of  Mr.  Paine  to  gratify  his  malice  and  to 
support  religion.  He  was  prosecuted  for  libel — was  convicted  and  fined. 
Yet  the  life  of  Paine,  written  by  this  liar,  is  referred  to  by  the  Chris- 
tian world  as  the  highest  authority. 

As  to  the  personal  habits  of  Mr.  Paine,  we  have  the  testimony  of  Wil- 
liam Carver,  with  whom  he  lived;  of  Mr.  Jarvis,  the  artist,  with  whom 
he  lived;  of  Mr.  Purdy,  who  was  a  tenant  of  Paine's;  of  Mr.  Buyer, 
with  whom  he  was  intimate;  of  Thomas  Nixon  and  Capt.  Daniel  Pel- 
ton,  both  of  whom  knew  him  well ;  of  Amasa  Woodsworth,  who  was 
with  him  when  he  died ;  of  John  Fellows,  who  boarded  at  the  same 
house;  of  James  Wilburn,  with  whom  he  boarded;  of  B.  F.  Raskins,  a 
lawyer,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  him,  and  called  upon  him  during 
his  last  illness;  of  Walter  Morton,  President  of  the  Phoenix  Insurance 
Company;  of  Clio  Rickman,  who  had  known  him  for  many  years;  of 


(jN  THOMAS  PAINE.  131 

Willet  and  Elias  Hicks,  Quakers,  who  knew  him  intimately  and  well; 
of  Judge  Hertell,  H.  Margary,  Elihu  Palmer,  and  many  others.  -All 
these  testified  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Paine  was  a  temperate  man.  In  those 
days  nearly  everybody  used  spirituous  liquors.  Paine  was  not  an  ex- 
ception, but  he  did  not  drink  to  excess.  Mr.  Lovett,  who  kept  the  City 
Hotel,  where  Paine  stopped,  in  a  note  to  Caleb  Bingham  declared  that 
Paine  drank  less  than  any  boarder  he  had. 

Against  all  this  evidence  Christians  produce  the  story  of  Grant  Thor- 
burn,  the  story  of  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Wickham,  that  an  elder  in  his  church 
told  him  that  Paine  was  a  drunkard,  corroborated  by  the  Rev.  Charles 
Hawley,  and  an  extract  from  Lossing's  history  to  the  same  effect.  The 
evidence  is  overwhelmingly  against  them.  Will  you  have  the  fairness 
to  admit  it  ?  Their  witnesses  T,re  merely  the  repeaters  of  the  falsehoods 
of  James  Cheetham,  the  convicted  libeler. 

After  all,  drinking  is  not  as  bad  as  lying.  An  honest  drunkard  is 
better  than  a  calumniator  of  the  dead.  "A  remnant  of  old  mortality 
drunk,  bloated,  and  half-asleep,"  is  better  than  a  perfectly  sober  de- 
fender of  human  slavery.  To  become  drunk  is  a  virtue  compared  with 
stealing  a  babe  from  the  breast  of  its  mother.  Drunkenness  is  one  of  the 
beatitudes,  compared  with  editing  a  religious  paper  devoted  to  the 
defense  of  slavery  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  a  divine  institution.  Do 
you  think  that  Paine  was  a  drunken  beast  when  he  wrote  "  Common 
Sense,"  a  pamphlet  that  aroused  three  millions  "of  people,  as  people 
were  never  aroused  by  words  before?  Was  he  a  drunken  beast  when  he 
wrote  the  "Crisis?"  Was  it  to  a  drunken  beast  that  the 'following 
letter  was  a  idressed: 

ROCKY  HILL,  September  10,  1783. — I  have  learned,  since  I  have  been 
at  this  place,  that  you  are  at  Bordentown.  Whether  for  the  sake  of 
retirement  or  economy.  I  know  not.  Be  it  for  either,  or  both,  or  what- 
ever it  may,  if  you  will  come  to  this  place  and  partake  with  me,  I  shall 
be  exceedingly  happy  to  see  you  at  it.  Your  presence  may  remind  Con- 
gress of  your  pa^t  services  to  this  country;  and  if  it  is  in  my  power  to 
impress  them,  command  my  best  exertions  with  freedom,  as  they  will 
be  rendered  cheerfully  by  one  who  entertains  a  lively  sense  of  the  im- 
portance of  your  works,  and  who,  with  much  pleasure,  subscribes  him- 
self your  sincere  friend,  GEORGE  WASHINGTON. 

Do  you  think  that  Paiue  was  a  drunken  beast  when  the  following 
letters  were  received  by  him : 

You  express  a  wish  in  your  letter  to  return  to  America  in  a  national 
ship.  Mr.  Dawson,  who  brings  over  the  treaty,  and  who  will  present 
you  with  this  letter,  is  charged  with  orders  to  the  Captain  of  the  Mary- 
land to  receive  and  accommodate  you  back,  if  you  can  be  ready  to 
depart  at  such  a  short  warning.  You  will,  in  general,  find  us  returned 
to  sentiments  worthy  of  former  times;  in  these  it  will  be  your  glory  to 
have  steadily  labored,  and  with  as  much  effect  as  any  man  living.  That 


152  MISTAKES  OF  1NQEHSOLL. 

you  may  live  long  to  continue  your  useful  labors,  ;iud  reap  the  reward 
in  the  thankfulness  of  nations,  is  my  sincere  prayer.  Accept  the  assur- 
ances of  my  high  esteem  and  affectionate  attachment. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON. 

It  has  been  very  generally  propagated  through  the  continent  that  I 
wrote  the  pamphlet  "  Common  Sense."  I  could  not  have  written  any- 
thing in  so  manly  and  striking  a  style.  JOHN  ADAMS. 

A  few  more  such  flaming  arguments  a»  were  exhibited  at  Falmouth 
and  Norfolk,  added  to  the  sound  doctrine  and  unausweraMe  reasoning 
contained  in  the  pamphlet  "  Common  Sense,"  will  not  leave  numbers 
at  a  loss  to  decide  on  the  propriety  of  a  separation. 

GEORGE  WASHINGTON. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  tell  you  how  much  all  your  countrymen 
— I  speak  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people — are  interested  in  your  wel- 
fare. They  have  not  forgotten  the  history  of  their  own  revolution,  and 
the  difficult  scenes  through  which  they  passed;  nor  do  they  review  its 
several  stages  without  reviving  in  their  bosoms  a  due  sensibility  of  the 
merits  of  those  who  served  them  in  that  great  and  arduous  conflict.  The 
crime  of  ingratitude  has  not  yet  stained,  and  I  trust  never  will  stain,  out 
national  character.  You  are  considered  by  them  as  not  only  having 
rendered  important  services  in  our  revolution,  but  as  being  on  a  more 
extensive  scale  the  friend  of  humnn  right  and  a  distinguished  and  able 
advocate  in  favor  of  public  liberty.  To  the  welfare  of  Thomas  Paine, 
the  Americans  are  not,  nor  can  they  be,  indifferent. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

No  writer  has  exceeded  Paine  in  rase  and  familiarity  of  style,  in 
perspicuity  of  expression,  happiness  of  elucidation,  and  in  simple  and 
unassuming  language.  THOMAS  JEFFERSON. 

Was  it  in  consideration  of  the  services  of  a  drunken  beast  that  the 
Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  presented  Thomas  Paine  with  £500  sterling? 
Did  the  State  of  New  York  feel  indebted  to  a  drunken  beast,  and  confer 
upon  Thomas  Paine  an  estate  of  several  hundred  acres?  Did  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  thank  him  for  his  services  because  he  had 
lived  a  drunken  and  beastly  life?  Was  he  elected  a  member  of  the 
French  convention  because  he  was  a  drunken  beast  ?  Was  it  the  act  of 
a  drunken  beast  to  put  his  own  life  in  jeopardy  by  voting  against  the 
death  of  the  King  ?  Was  it  because  he  was  a  drunken  beast  that  he  op- 
posed the  "  Reign  of  Terror '' — that  he  endeavored  to  stop  the  shedding 
of  blood,  and  did  all  in  his  power  to  protest  even  his  own  enemies  ?  Do 
the  following  extracts  sound  like  the  words  of  a  drunken  beast : 

I  believe  in  the  equality  of  man,  and  I  believe  that  religious  duties 
consist  in  doing  justice,  loving  mercy,  and  endeavoring  to  make  our  fel- 
low creatures  happy. 

My  own  mind  is  my  own  church. 

It  is  necessary  to  the  happiness  of  man  that  he  be  mentally  faithful 
to  himself. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  153 

Any  system  of  religion  that  shocks  the  minil  of  a  child  can  not  be  a 
true  system. 

The  work  of  God  is  the  creation  which  we  behold. 

The  age  of  ignorance  commenced  with  the  Christian  system. 

It  is  with  a  pious  fraud  as  with  a  bad  action — it  begets  a  calamitous 
necessity  of  going  on. 

To  read  the  Bible  without  horror,  we  must  undo  everything  that  is 
tender,  sympathizing,  and  benevolent  in  the  heart  of  man. 

The  man  does  not  exist  who  can  say  I  have  persecuted  him,  or  that  I 
have,  in  any  case,  returned  evil  for  evil. 

Of  all  the  tyrants  that  afflict  mankind,  tyranny  in  religion  is  the 
worst. 

The  belief  in  a  cruel  God  makes  a  cruel  man. 

My  own  opinion  is,  that  those  whose  lives  have  been  spent  in  doing 
good,  and  endeavoring  to  make  their  fellow-mortals  happy,  will  be 
happy  hereafter. 

The  intellectual  part  of  religion  is  a  private  affair  between  every  man 
and  his  Maker,  and  in  which  no  third  party  has  any  right  to  interfere. 
The  practical  part  consists  in  our  doing  good  to  each  other. 

No  man  ought  to  make  a  living  by  religion.  One  person  can  not  act 
religion  for  another — every  person  must  act  for  himself. 

One  good  school-master  is  of  more  use  than  a  hundred  priests. 

Let  us  propagate  morality,  unfettered  by  superstition. 

God  is  the  power,  or  first  cause ;  nature  is  the  law,  and  matter  is  the 
subject  acted  upon. 

I  believe  in  one  God  and  no  more,  and  I  hope  for  happiness  beyond 
this  life. 

The  key  of  happiness  is  not  in  the  keeping  of  any  sect,  nor  ought  the 
road  to  it  to  be  obstructed  by  any. 

My  religion,  and  the  whole  of  it,  is  the  fear  and  love  of  the  Deity,  and 
universal  philanthropy. 

I  have  yet,  I  believe,  some  years  in  store,  for  I  have  a  good  state  of 
health  and  a  happy  mind.  I  tase  care  of  both,  by  nourishing  the  first 
with  temperance  and  the  latter  with  abundance. 

He  lives  immured  within  the  bastile  of  a  word. 

How  perfectly  that  sentence  describes  the  orthodox.  The  bastile  in 
which  they  are  immured  is  the  word  "  Calvinism." 

Man  has  no  property  in  man. 

The  world  is  my  country,  to  do  good  my  religion. 

I  ask  again  whether  these  splendid  utterances  came  from  the  lips  of 
a  drunken  beast  ? 

"Man  has  no  property  in  man." 


154  MISTAKES  OP  INOERSOLL. 

What  a  splendid  motto  that  would  make  for  the  religious  newspapers 
of  this  country  thirty  years  ago.  I  ask,  again,  whether  these  splendid 
utterances  came  from  the  lips  of  a  drunken  beast? 

Only  a  little  while  ago — two  or  three  days — I  read  a  report  of  an  ad- 
dress made  by  Bishop  Doane,  an  Episcopal  Bishop  in  apostolic  succes- 
sion— regular  line  from  Jesus  Christ  down  to  Bishop  Doane.  The 
Bishop  was  making  a  speech  to  young  preachers — the  sprouts,  the 
theological  buds.  He  took  it  upon  him  to  advise  them  all  against  early 
marriages.  Let  us  look  at  it.  Do  you  believe  there  is  any  duty  that 
man  owes  to  God  that  will  prevent  a  man  marrying  the  woman  he 
loves?  Is  there  some  duty  that  I  owe  to  the  clouds  that  will  prevent 
me  from  marrying  some  good,  sweet  woman?  Now,  just  think  of  that! 
I  tell  you,  young  man,  you  marry  as  soon  as  you  can  find  her  and  sup- 
port her.  I  had  rather  have  one  woman  that  I  know  than  any  amount 
of  gods  that  I  am  not  acquainted  with.  If  there  is  any  revelation  from 
God  to  man,  a  good  woman  is  the  best  revelation  He  has  ever  made; 
and  I  will  admit  that  that  revelation  was  inspired. 

Now,  on  the  subject  of  marriage,  let  me  offset  the  speech  of  Bishop 
Doane  by  a  word  from  this  "  wretched  infidel :" 

Though  I  appear  a  sorry  wanderer,  the  marriage  state  has  rot  a  sin- 
cerer  friend  than  I.  It  is  the  harbor  of  human  life,  and  is,  with  respect 
to  the  things  of  this  world,  what  the  next  "world  is  to  this.  It  is  home, 
and  that  one  word  conveys  more  than  any  other  word  can  express.  For 
a  few  years  we  may  glide  along  the  tide  of  a  single  life,  but  it  is  a  tide 
that  flows  but  once,  and,  what  is  still  worse,  it  ebbs  faster  than  it  flows, 
and  leaves  many  a  hapless  voyager  aground.  1  am  one,  you  see,  that 
has  experienced  the  fall  I  am  describing.  I  have  lost  m}'lide;  itpassed 
by  while  every  throb  of  my  heart  was  on  the  wing  for  the  salvation  of 
America,  and  I  have  now,  an  contentedly  as  I  can,  made  myself  a  little 
tower  of  walls  on  that  shore  that  has  the  solitary  resemblance  of  home 

I  just  want  you  to  know  what  this  dreadful  infidel  thought  of  home. 
I  just  wanted  you  to  know  what  Thomas  Paine  thought  of  home. 

Then  here  is  another  letter  that  Thomas  Paine  wrote  to  congress  on  the 
21st  day  of  January,  1808,  and  I  wanted  you  to  know  those  two.  It  is 
only  a  short  one : 

To  THE  HONORABLE  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES:  The 
purport  of  this  address  is  to  state  a  claim  I  feel  myself  entitled  to  make 
on  the  United  States,  leaving  it  to  their  representatives  in  congress  to 
decide  on  its  worth  and  its  merits.  The  case  is  as  follows : 

Toward  the  latter  end  of  the  year  1780  the  continental  money  had 
become  depreciated — the  paper  dollar  being  then  not  more  than  a  cent 
— that  it  seemed  next  to  impossible  to  continue  the  war.  As  the  United 
States  was  then  in  alliance  with  France,  it  became  necessary  to  make 
France  acquainted  with  our  real  situation.  I  therefore  drew  up  a  letter 
to  the  Count  De  Vergennes,  stating  undi.sguisedly  the  whole  case,  and 
concluding  with  a  request  whether  France  could  not,  either  as  a  sub- 


ON  THOU ,-lS  PAINE.  155 

•idyor  a  loan,  supply  the  United  States  with  a  million  pounds  sterling, 
and  continue  that  supply,  annually,  during  the  war.  I  showed  this 
letter  to  Mr.  Morbois,  secretary  of  the  French  minister.  His  remark 
Bpon  it  was  that  a  million  sent  out  of  the  nation  exhausted  it  more  than 
ten  millions  spent  in  it.  I  then  showed  it  to  Mr.  Ralph  Izard,  member 
of  congress  from  South  Carolina.  He  borrowed  the  letter  of  me  and 
said:  "  We  will  endeavor  to  do  something  about  it  in  congress."  Ac- 
cordingly, congress  then  appointed  John  A.  Laurens  to  go  to  France  and 
make  representation  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  assistance.  Col. 
Laurens  wished  to  decline  the  mission,  and  asked  that  congress  would 
appoint  Col.  Hamilton,  who  did  not  choose  to  do  it.  Col.  Laurens  then 
came  and  stated  the  case  to  me,  and  said  that  he  was  well  enough 
acquainted  with  the  military  difficulties  of  the  army,  but  he  WHS  not 
acquainted  with  political  affairs,  or  with  the  resources  of  the  country, 
to  undertake  such  a  mission.  Said  he,  "  If  you  will  go  with  me  I  will 
accept  the  mission."  This  I  agreed  to  do,  and  did  do.  We  sailed  from 
Boston  in  the  Alliance  frigate  February,  1781,  and  arrived  in  France  in 
the  beginning  of  March.  The  aid  obtained  fro;n  France  was  six  millions 
of  liyres,  as  at  present,  and  ten  millions  as  a  loan,  borrowed  in  Holland 
on  the  security  of  France.  We  sailed  from  Brest  in  the  French  frigate 
Resolue  the  1st  of  June,  and  arrived  at  Boston  on  the  25th  of  August, 
bringing  with  us  two  millions  and  a  half  in  silver,  and  conveying  a  ship 
and  a  brig  laden  with  clothing  and  military  stores. 

The  money  was  transported  with  sixteen  ox  teams  to  the  National 
bank  at  Philadelphia,  which  enabled  our  army  to  move  to  Yorktown  to 
attack  in  conjunction  with  the  French  army  under  iiochambeau,  the 
British  army  under  Cornwallis. 

As  I  never  had  a  single  cent  for  these  services,  I  felt  myself  entitled, 
as  the  country  is  now  in  a  stale  of  prosperity,  to  state  the  case  to  congress. 

As  to  my  political  works,  beginning  with  the  pamphlet  "Common 
Sense,"  published  the  beginning  of  January  1770,  which  awakened 
America  to  a  declaration  of  independence,  as  the  president  and  vice- 
president  both  know,  as  they  were  works  done  from  principle  I.can  not 
dishonor  that  principle  by  ever  asking  any  reward  for  them.  The 
country  has  been  benefited  by  them,  and  I  make  myself  happy  in  the 
knowledge  of  that  benefit.  It  is,  however,  proper  for  me  to  add  that  the 
mere  independence  of  America,  were  it  to  have  been  followed  by  a 
system  of  government  modeled  after  the  corrupt  system  of  the  English 
government,  would  not  have  interested  me  with  the  uabated  ardor  it  did. 
It  was  to  bring  forward  and  establish  a  representative  system  of  govern- 
ment. As  the  work  itself  will  sliow,  that  was  the  leading  principle 
with  me  in  writing  that  work,  and  all  my  other  works  during  the 
progress  of  the  revolution,  and  I  followed  the  same  principle  in 
writing  in  English  the  "Rights  of  Man." 

After  the  failure  of  the  5  per  cent,  duty  recommended  by  congress  to 
pay  the  interest  of  the  loan  to  be  borrowed  in  Holland,  I  wrote  to 
Chancellor  Livingston,  then  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  and  Robert 
Morris,  minister  of  finance,  and  proposed  a  method  for  getting  over  the 
difficulty  at  once,  which  was  by  adding  a  continental  legislature  which 
should  be  empowered  to  make  laws  for  the  whole  union  instead  of 
recommending  them.  So  the  method  proposed  met  with  their  full  ap- 
probation. I  held  myself  in  reserve  to  take  a  step  up  whenever  a 
direct  occasion  occurred. 


156  MISTAKES  OF  INGERtiOLL. 

In  a  conversation  afterward  with  Gov.  Clinton,  of  New  York,  now 
vice-president,  it  was  judged  that  for  the  purpose  of  my  going  fully 
into  the  subject,  and  to  prevent  any  misconstruction  of  ray  motive  or 
object,  it  would  be  best  that  I  received  nothing  from  congress,  but  to 
leave  it  to  the  states  individually  to  make  me  what  acknowledgment 
they  pleased.  The  State  of  New  York  presented  me  with  a  farm,  which 
since  my  return  to  America.  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  sell,  and  the 
btaie  of  Pennsylvania  voted  me  £500  of  their  currency,  but  none  of  ihc 
states  to  the  east  of  New  York,  or  the  south  of  Pennsylvania,  have 
made  me  the  least  acknowledgment.  They  had  received  benefits  from 
me  which  they  accepted,  and  there  the  matter  ended.  This  story  will 
not  tell  well  in  history.  All  the  civilized  world  knows  I  have  been  of 
great,  service  lo  the  United  States,  and  have  generously  given  away  that 
which  would  easily  have  made  me  a  fortune.  I  much  question  if  an 
instance  is  to  be  found  in  ancient  or  modern  times  of  a  man  who  had 
no  personal  interest  in  the  case  to  take  up  that  of  the  establishment  of 
a  r  presentative  government,  and  who  sought  neither  place  nor  office 
after  it  was  established ;  that  pursued  the  same  undeviating  principles  that 
I  had  for  more  than  thirty  years,  and  that  in  spite  of  dangers,  difficulties, 
and  inconveniences  of  which  I  have  had  my  share.  THOMAS  PAINE. 

An  old  man  in  Pennsylvania  told  me  once  that  his  father  hired  a 
old  revolutionary  soldier  by  the  name  of  Thomas  Martin  to- work  for 
him.  Martin  was  then  quite  an  old  man;  and  there  was  sin  old  Presby- 
terian preacher  used  to  come  there,  by  the  name  of  Crawford,  and  he  sat 
down  by  the  fire  and  he  got  to  talking  one  night,  among  other  things, 
about  Thomas  Paine — what  a  wretched,  infamous  dog  he  W's;  and 
while  he  was  in  the  midst  of  this  conversation  the  old  soldier  rose  from 
the  fireplace,  and  he  walked  over  to  the  preacher,  and  he  said  to  him  : 
"  Did  you  ever  see  Thomas  Paine  ?"  "  No."  "  Well,"  he  says,  "  I  ha\  c  . 
I  saw  him  at  Valley  Forge.  I  heard  read  at  the  head  of  every  regiment 
and  company  the  letters  of  Thomas  Paine.  I  heard  them  read  the 
'Crisis,'  and  I  saw  Thomas  Paine  writing  on  the  head  of  a  drum,  sit- 
ting at  the  bivouac  fire,  those  simple  words  that  inspired  every  patriot's 
bosom,  and  I  want  to  tell  you  Mr.  Preacher,  that  Thomas  Paine  did 
more  for  liberty  than  any  priest  that  ever  lived  in  this  world. 

And  yet  they  say  he  was  afraid  to  die!  Afraid  of  what?  Is  there 
any  God  in  heaven  that  hates  a  patriot?  If  there  is  Thomas  Paine 
ought  to  be  afraid  to  die.  Is  there  any  God  ihat  would  damn  a  man  for 
helping  to  free  three  millions  of  people?  If  Thomas  Paine  was  in  hell 
to-night,  and  could  get  God's  attention  long  enough  to  point  him  to  the 
old  banner  of  the  stars  floating  over  America,  God  would  have  to  let 
him  out.  What  would  he  be  afraid  of?  Had  he  ever  burned  anybody  ? 
No.  Had  he  ever  put  anybody  in  the  inquisition?  No.  Ever  put  the 
thumb-screw  on  anybody  ?  No.  Ever  put  anybody  in  prison  so  that 
some  poor  wife  and  mother  would  come  and  hold  her  little  babe  up  at 
the  grated  window  that  the  man  bound  to  the  floor  might  get  one  glimpse 
of  his  blue-eyed  babe  ?  Did  he  ever  do  that  ? 


OA'  THOMAS  PAINE.  157 

Did  he  ever  light  a  fagot?  Did  he  ever  tear  human  .flesh  ?  Why, 
what  had  he  to  be  afraid  of?  He  had  helped  to  make  the  world  free. 
He  had  helped  create  the  only  republic  then  on  the  earth.  What  was 
he  afraid  of?  Was  God  a  tory?  It  won't  do. 

Oue  would  think  from  the  persistence  with  which  the  orthodox  have 
charged  for  the  last  seventy  years  that  Thomas  Paine  recanted,  that  there 
must  be  some  evidence  of  some  kind  to  support  these  charges.  Even 
with  my  ideas  of  the  average  honor  of  the  believers  in  snp<  rsiition,  the 
averagt  truthfulness  of  the  disciples  of  fear,  1  did  not  Relieve  that  all 
those  infamies  rested  solely  upon  poorly-attested  falsehoods,  i  had 
charity  enough  to  suppose  that  something  had  been  caid  or  done  by 
Thomas  Paine  capable  of  being  tortured  into  a  foundation  of  all  these 
calumnies.  What  crime  had  Thomas  Pmne  committed  that  he  should 
have  feared  to  die?  The  only  answer  you  cau  give  isth-tt  he  denied  the 
inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  II  that  is  crime,  the  civilized  world  is 
filled  with  criminals  The  pioneers  of  human  thought,  the  intellectual 
leaders  of  this  world,  the  foremost  men  in  every  science,  the  kings  of 
literature  and  art,  those  who  stand  in  the  front  of  investigation,  ihe  men 
who  are  civilizing  and  elevating  and  refining  mankind,  are  all  un- 
believers in  the  ignorant  dosrma  of  inspira'ion. 

Why  should  we  think  Thomas  Pnine  was  afraid  to  die?  and  why 
should  the  American  people  malign  ihe  memory  of  that  great  man? 
He  was  the  first  to  advocate  the  separation  from  the  mother  country* 
He  was  the  first  to  write  these  words:  "  The  United  States  of  America." 
Think  of  maligning  that  man  !  He  was  the  first  to  lift  his  voice  against 
iiiman  slavery,  and  while  hundreds  and  thousands  of  ministers  all  over 
the  United  States  not  only  believed  in  slavery,  but  bought  and  sold 
women  and  babes  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  this  infidel,  this  wretch 
who  is  now  burning  in  the  flames  of  hell,  lifted  his  voice  against  human 
slavery  and  said :  '•  It  is  robbery,  and  a  slaveholder  is  a  thcif;  the 
whipper  of  women  is  a  barbarian;  the  seller  of  a  child  is  a  savage.'* 
No  wonder  that  the  theiving  hypocrite  of  his  day  haied  him! 

I  have  no  love  for  any  man  whoever  pretended  to  own  a  human  being. 
I  have  no  love  fora  man  Hint  would  sell  a  babe  from  the  mother's  throb- 
bing, heaving,  agonized  breast.  I  have  no  respect  for  a  man  who 
considered  a  lash  on  the  naked  back  as  a  legal  tender  for  labor  performed. 
80  write  it  down,  Thomas  Paine  was  the  first  great  abolitioaist  of 
America 

Now  let  me  tell  you  another  thing.  He  was  the  first  man  to  raise  his 
voice  for  the  abolition  of  the  death  penalty  in  the  French  convention. 
What  more  did  he  do?  He  was  the  first  to  suggest  a  federal  constitu- 
tion for  the  United  States.  He  saw  that  the  old  articles  of  confederation 


158  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

were  nothing;  that  they  were  ropes  of  water  and  chains  of  mist,  and  hf 
said,  "  We  want  a  federal  constitution  so  that  when  you  pass  a  law  rais- 
ing 5  per  cent,  you  can  make  the  states  pay  it."  Let  us  give  him  hia 
due.  What  were  all  these  preachers  doing  at  that  time  ? 

He  hated  superstition;  he  loved  the  truth.  He  hated  tyranny ;  he 
loved  liberty.  He  was  the  friend  of  the  human  race.  He  lived  a  brave 
and  thoughtful  life.  He  was  a  good  and  true  and  generous  man,  and 
lie  died  as  he  lived.  Like  a  great  and  peaceful  river  with  green  and 
shaded  banks,  without  a  murmur,  without  a  ripple,  he  flowed  into  the 
waveless  ocean  of  eternal  peace.  I  love  him ;  I  love  every  man  who 
gave  me,  or  helped  to  give  me  the  liberty  I  enjoy  to-night;  I  love  every 
man  who  helped  me  put  our  flag  in  heaven.  I  love  every  man  who  has 
lifted  his  voice  in  any  age  for  liberty,  for  a  chainless  body  and  a  fetterless 
brain.  I  love  every  man  who  has  given  to  every  other  human  being 
every  right  that  he  claimed  for  himself.  I  love  every  man  who  hag 
thought  more  of  principle  than  he  has  of  position.  I  love  the  men  who 
have  trampled  crowns  beneath  their  feet  that  they  might  do  something 
for  mankind,  and  for  that  reason  I  love  Thomas  Paine. 

I  thank  you  all,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  every  one — every  one,  for  the 
attention  you  have  given  me  this  evening. 


Great  Speeches  I 
WIT,  WISDOM  AND  ELOQUENCE! 

OP 

COL.    R.    G.    INGERSOLL, 

Illustrated;  8vo,  158  pages,  cloth  and  gold. 

PRICE,  $1.  

REPLIES 

TO 

INGERSOLL  ON  THOMAS  PAINE 

BY 

l>r.  Goodwin,  Bishop   Fallows,  James  Slaclaughlin,  Prof. 

Wilcox,    Or.    Il.itiU-l.l.    Or.   Blackburn,   Simeon 

Oilbert,  Pero  Hyacintlie,  and  others. 

INCLUDING,   ALSO, 

INGERSOL.I/S  LECTURE  ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 

8vo,  15  H  pages,  cloth  and  gold. 

PRICE,    $1. ^^^ 

MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL, 

AND  ins 

ANSWERS   COMPLETE. 


This  volume  contains  Ingersoll's  Lectures, 

"Mistakes  of  Moses."  "What  Shall  We  Do  to  be  Saved?" 

"Skulls."  "Thomas  Paine." 

"Funeral  Oration  at  His  Brother's  Grave,"  with  Comments  on  same  by 

Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Isaac  N.  Arnold,  and  others. 

Also,  criticisms  on  all  of  his  lectures,  by  Prof.  Swing,  W.  H.  Ryder,  D.  DM 
J.  Monro  Gibson,  D.  D.,  Brooke  Herford,  D.  D.,  Rabbi  Wise,  Rev.W.  F.  Grafts, 
Chaplain  C.  C.  McCabe,  D.  D.,'  Arthur  Swazy,  D.  D.,  Robert  Collyer,  D.  D., 
Bishop  Fallows,  Dr.  Thomas,  Dr.  Lorimer.  Dr.  Courtney,  Prof.  Courtney,  Prof. 
Curtis,  Dr.  Goodwin,  tiev.  James  McLaughlin.  Prof.  Wilcox,  Dr.  Hatfield,  Dr. 
Blackburn,  Simeon  Gilbert,  Pere  Hyacinthe.  and  others. 

Edited  by  J.  B.  McClure.     Beautifully  bound  in  cloth  and  gold;  8vo,  600 
pages.    Illustrated. 
PRICE,    $2. 

Any  of  the  above  book-s  will  be  sent  by  mail,  post— paid,  on  receipt 
-of  price. 

Rhodes  &  MeClure,  Publishers, 

METHODJST  CHURCH  BLOCK,  CHICAGO,  ILL 


D.  L.  MOODY'S 

ANECDOTES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


COMPRISING  ALL  OF  MR.  MOODY'S  ANECDOTES  AND  ILLUS- 
TRATIONS USED  BY  HIM  IN  HIS 

Revival  Work  in  Europe  and  America; 

-  ALSO  - 

EngifaYiqgg  of  Me$i%  J^oodi},  j&nl^i), 

Whittle  &  Bliss,  Moody'  s  Church,  Chicago  Tabernacle,  Farwell  Hall.  Etc. 


A  handy  and  handsome  volume  which  many  will  prize.  —  New  York  Evan- 
gelist. 

It  is  a  good  insight  into  the  workings  and  teachings  of  the  great  Evangelist. 
Jftw  York  Daily  Democrat. 

A  book  of  anecdotes  which  have  thrilled  hundreds  of  thousands.  —  Presby- 
terian Banner. 

The  book  has  been  compiled  by  J.  B.  McCLURE,  whose  scholarship  and 
journalistic  experience  perfectly  lits  him  to  do  the  work  discriminately  and 
well.—  .V.  W.  Christian  Advocate.  (Methodist.) 

Beautifully  bound  in  cloth  and  gold;  8  vo.,  200  pages.    Illustrated. 

Price  $1.00. 


OR, 

STOEIES  ABOUT  CHILDREN. 

The  universal  verdict  of  press  and  public  is  that  for  juvenile  literature, 
these  stories  and  sketches  are  unequalled  in  the  language.  Purity,  pith  and 
point,  instructive  and  entertaining  is  the  character  of  this  work,  and  it  should 
be  In  the  hands  of  every  child  in  America. 

8  vo.,  150  pages,  handsomely  illustrated.    Edited  by  J.  B.  McCLUKE. 

Price  $1.00. 

Any  of  the  above  books  •will  be  sent  by  mail,  post-paid,  on  ro- 
ceipt  of  price. 

Rhodes  &  McClure,  Publishers, 

METHODIST  CHURCH  BLOCK,       -       -       •      CHICAGO,  ILL. 


FOR   THE   DEAF,   RHODES' 

AUDIPHONE. 

THE    ONLY   INVENTION 

THAT  ENABLES  THE  DEAF  TO  HEAR 

THROUGH    THE     MEDIUM    OF   THE.  TEETH,     AND    THE     DEAF   AND 
DUMB    TO    HEAR    AND    LEARN    TO    SPfcAK. 


A  Claa  of  Defcf  Mutei  Listening  to  Music  for  the  Flnt  Time,  by  aid  of  th«  Audiphone, 
From  Frank  Let  lit'*  Illiutrattd  Ncwspafer,  Dec.  13,  1879. 


INVENTED   AND   MANUFACTURED    BY 

RICHARD  S.  RHODES, 


PRINCIPAL  AMERICAN  OFFICE  AND  AUDIPHONE  PARLORS: 

Methodist  Church  Block, 


Corner  Clark  and  Washington  Six. 


PAMPHLETS  FREE. 


CHICAGO,  ILL. 


A     000115328 


